You cant get something from nothing

Originally posted by sonhouse
You fail to appreciate that randomness of reactions is in a field of literally trillions of possibilities going on at once. All it takes is one hit for the right combo of amino acids and such to end up making an RNA and then DNA complex that can reproduce.

That is the gist of one of the ideas for the beginning of life.

That still has nothing to do w ...[text shortened]... arted.

Evolution is WAY ahead of that game. Too bad you can't see the trees for the forest.

But it does require that all life came from a common ancestor as Darwin
believed. So that takes us right back to the beginning of life and proves
Darwin was wrong.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Note the thread title "You cant get something from nothing."
I believe the point is ligers or whatever don't come from nothing.
Lions and tigers had to exist before ligers could exist.

Regardless of the thread title, Dasa's post is flawed. I have eaten oranges grown on a lemon tree and heard of apple trees with multiple types of apple fruit. And life has been made from non-life - unless you get really inventive about what you define as 'life'.

As for whether you can get something from nothing, that clearly has nothing to do with the OP as it does not talk about getting something from nothing, it talks about spontaneous generation of cells and 747s but does not suggest that either came from nothing.
The OP is also wrong - even if Sir Fred Hoyle did say it. Before even starting to calculate the probabilities, I would want to know things like: what is acceptable within the definition of "Spontaneous generation of a living cell", and what elements and molecule are available to the cyclone. If, for example there is no aluminium in the cyclone the probability of the 747 is essentially zero - not so spontaneous generation of a cell (unless the definition is more strict than is suggested by the quote).

If 'spontaneous generation of a cell' is taken to mean "all atoms falling into the 'correct' places via Brownian motion", then I would be willing to accept that it is highly improbable. But who cares. Nobody in their right mind thinks that atoms solution move via Brownian motion. They follow the rules of chemistry which are far more ordered.

So the strawman is to pretend that the probability of spontaneous generation of water from a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is essentially zero by calculating the probability based on Brownian motion or an equivalent when in reality we all know that a simple spark can accomplish the task with near 1 probability due to chemical reactions.

I know Dasa cant follow any of this, but I am sure you can, and if you perpetuate the strawman you are being wilfully dishonest.

Originally posted by Dasa
Its very simple.....

Oranges come from orange trees

Apples come from apple trees.

Dogs come from dogs.

Elephants come fro elephants

And life comes from life.

Life doesn't come from non-life

This is honesty.

Binary thinking at its best.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You said, "...maybe in a hundred years we might see a lab experiment
produce life from nothing but precursor molecules."

God is the source of life, so what you said will NEVER happen.

Well dream while you can......

It is obvious what your response would be if a life form was generated from basic chemicals: "Its not life because god didn't make it".

Even if that man made life came up and bit you on the assumption.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But it does require that all life came from a common ancestor as Darwin
believed. So that takes us right back to the beginning of life and proves
Darwin was wrong.

The Theory of Evolution does not require that all life came from a common ancestor. It strongly suggests that the current evidence points to all known life having a common ancestor. Of course since life tends to swap genes and do fancy stuff like joining two life forms to make a new one, ancestry can get quite complicated. Considering that virus's, that are often considered not to be life forms play a major role in gene transfer (and even the development of new genes), it is not only lifes ancestry that must be considered, but complex chemicals such as DNA, RNA, and virus'.

According to some source, up to 8% of our ancestry is virus':

http://www.uta.edu/ucomm/mediarelations/press/2010/01/genome-biologist-reports.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Originally posted by KellyJay
Talk about circular, you got something better than that?
Kelly

It's all that is deserved.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If only ...

Where do ligers come from? and tions?

Where do hybrid roses come from?

Where does the false oxslip come from?

Where did the first labradoodle come from?

Spend a little time investigating and you may braoden your mind!

These are not life but just manipulation of matter.

Someone can manipulate matter and produce a black rose or a blue rose or a pink and yellow spotted rose but this is just different versions of matter.

Manipulating matter has nothing to do with life and when you can start with an empty room and then come up with ant ant in that room then you have created life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Theory of Evolution does not require that all life came from a common ancestor. It strongly suggests that the current evidence points to all known life having a common ancestor. Of course since life tends to swap genes and do fancy stuff like joining two life forms to make a new one, ancestry can get quite complicated. Considering that virus's, that a ...[text shortened]... ress/2010/01/genome-biologist-reports.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Stop trying to smash a round peg into a square hole.

Life comes from life and when you can demonstrate that life comes from matter then you have something to say.......otherwise you are just presenting rhetoric that actually means nothing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But it does require that all life came from a common ancestor as Darwin
believed. So that takes us right back to the beginning of life and proves
Darwin was wrong.

Where did you get the idea there had to be a common ancestor? The latest findings are that life arose at least 6 times, all independently. There is no common ancestor to all life forms. Darwin was wrong. Get over it.

Originally posted by Dasa
Stop trying to smash a round peg into a square hole.

Life comes from life and when you can demonstrate that life comes from matter then you have something to say.......otherwise you are just presenting rhetoric that actually means nothing.

You never answered my question: Why did you start another account?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You never answered my question: Why did you start another account?

My name is Vishvahetu Dasa and the name Vishvahetu was associated with certain words that I choose not to use now ......... for those words upset to many people.

Originally posted by Dasa
My name is Vishvahetu Dasa and the name Vishvahetu was associated with certain words that I choose not to use now ......... for those words upset to many people.

As "Dasa" you read exactly the same to me, as "vishvahetu".

Originally posted by Dasa
Stop trying to smash a round peg into a square hole.

I wasn't trying to. I was not replying to your post at the time.

Life comes from life and when you can demonstrate that life comes from matter then you have something to say.......otherwise you are just presenting rhetoric that actually means nothing.
I already stated that man has successfully created life from non-life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Regardless of the thread title, Dasa's post is flawed. I have eaten oranges grown on a lemon tree and heard of apple trees with multiple types of apple fruit. And life has been made from non-life - unless you get really inventive about what you define as 'life'.

As for whether you can get something from nothing, that clearly has nothing to do with the ...[text shortened]... am sure you can, and if you perpetuate the strawman you are being wilfully dishonest.

It appears to me that Sir Fred Hoyle was a wise man.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where did you get the idea there had to be a common ancestor? The latest findings are that life arose at least 6 times, all independently. There is no common ancestor to all life forms. Darwin was wrong. Get over it.

Well at least we agree on one count.