# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Abiogenesis Discussion Thread

## Truth Warrior

Abiogenesis



*In the* *natural sciences**,* *abiogenesis**, or origin of life, is the study of how* *life** on* *Earth** emerged from* *inanimate**organic** and* *inorganic**molecules**. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable* *isotopes** of* *carbon** (**12C** and* *13C**),* *iron** (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and* *sulfur** (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate* *photosynthesis**.*

*Abiogenesis is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on* *biology** and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic. Several hypotheses have been proposed, most notably the* *iron-sulfur world theory** (metabolism first) and the* *RNA world hypothesis** (genetics first).* [h2]History of the concept in science [/h2]
*Until the early 19th century people frequently believed in spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.*

*Partial extract from:* *http://www.reference.com/browse/Abiogenesis*

*Discuss or not.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I'll wait for more knowledgeable folks to comment, but thanks for posting.   I'm looking forward to what happens with this thread.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'll wait for more knowledgeable folks to comment, but thanks for posting.  I'm looking forward to what happens with this thread.


*You're welcome.*

*My SWAG prediction, not much.* 

*For more info, check the link.* 

*Thanks!*

----------


## Josh_LA

WOW, you actually know abiogenesis from evolution, cheers for you.

I'm not an expert in it though, I might have to go through the same reading as you, except I might understand it faster.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> WOW, you actually know abiogenesis from evolution, cheers for you.
> 
> I'm not an expert in it though, I might have to go through the same reading as you, except I might understand it faster.


 *Why bother? It's garbage TOO.< IMHO >  All life ONLY originates FROM life as far as I can know and tell, so far.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Why bother? It's garbage TOO.< IMHO >  All life ONLY originates FROM life as far as I can know and tell, so far.*


As far as you know and tell? You know everything don't you?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> As far as you know and tell? You know everything don't you?


 *Nope, NOT even close. Luckily NEITHER does anyone else. We're all ignorant, just about different things. One of the major hallmarks and signposts of maturity is the ability to recognize your limitations.<IMHO>* 

*"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."*

----------


## Theocrat

The 19th century French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis in formulations of germ theory. According to Wikipedia,




> Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of microorganisms, and that the emergent growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[8] but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex ovo).
> 
> He exposed boiled broths to air in vessels that contained a filter to prevent all particles from passing through to the growth medium, and even in vessels with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not allow dust particles to pass. Nothing grew in the broths unless the flasks were broken open; therefore, the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than spontaneously generated within the broth. This was one of the last and most important experiments disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. The experiment also supported germ theory.


Ruling out panspermia, abiogenesis is the only way to understand origins in the evolution paradigm of natural science. It is the necessary antecedent to how living organisms arose in the first place, if the evolution tale is true. Yet, many evolutionists struggle with understanding origins of organisms, and their myths of spontaneous generation, panspermia, and big bang theories do not hold up to any serious scientific scrutiny.

----------


## Sheepdog11

> The 19th century French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis in formulations of germ theory. According to Wikipedia,
> 
> 
> 
> Ruling out panspermia, abiogenesis is the only way to understand origins in the evolution paradigm of natural science. It is the necessary antecedent to how living organisms arose in the first place, if the evolution tale is true. Yet, many evolutionists struggle with understanding origins of organisms, and their myths of spontaneous generation, panspermia, and big bang theories do not hold up to any serious scientific scrutiny.


Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, which has nothing to do with the current study of abiogenesis.

Pasteur basically proved that fully-developed organisms can't just appear out of nothing.

This doesn't "disprove" abiogenesis in ANY WAY.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, which has nothing to do with the current study of abiogenesis.
> 
> Pasteur basically proved that fully-developed organisms can't just appear out of nothing.
> 
> This doesn't "disprove" abiogenesis in ANY WAY.


 *What do you care?  It's NOT a part of evolution.  *

----------


## Sheepdog11

> *What do you care?  It's NOT a part of evolution.  *


Am I not allowed to discuss any other topic?

----------


## Theocrat

> Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, which has nothing to do with the current study of abiogenesis.
> 
> Pasteur basically proved that fully-developed organisms can't just appear out of nothing.
> 
> This doesn't "disprove" abiogenesis in ANY WAY.


How did we get here according to the evolution fairy tale? Was it not life appearing out of nothing? Did this process not lead to frogs eventually turning into princes over millions and millions and millions and millions of years ago?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How did we get here according to the evolution fairy tale? Was it not life appearing out of nothing? Did this process not lead to frogs eventually turning into princes over millions and millions and millions and millions of years ago?


I hear that bunchies is distantly related to frogs.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I hear that bunchies is distantly related to frogs.


 *Well it's certainly got the color part gene, down pat.*

----------


## Sheepdog11

> How did we get here according to the evolution fairy tale? Was it not life appearing out of nothing? Did this process not lead to frogs eventually turning into princes over millions and millions and millions and millions of years ago?


No, it wasn't "life appearing out of nothing". It was most likely simple chemical interactions that built upon each other until eventually you could call it life.




> Simple molecules--->Adsorption surface, piezoelectric properties exhibited by crystalline surfaces forms the basis of catalysis---->Simple organic pro-polymers like PNA---->Pre-RNA world---->The formation of pre-ribozymes allows for first replicative systems----->Outphasing of pre-RNA by RNA---->Autocatalysis via ribozymal RNA templates----->Natural selection of ribozymes for self-replicative catalytic properties---->RNA world---->Formation of vesicles from phospholipids thermodynamically faborable in the water---->Segregation of ribozymes allows for mutual cooperation and selection----->Formation of first biological replicative system from the duplication of RNA----->Outphasing of RNA by DNA----->Formation of dsDNA templated polymerization-------->Cooperation of DNA as templated polymer of replicative heridary information and RNA ribozymes as the catalytic molecules of pre-cellular life in membranous vesicles---->Formation of the first polypeptides by RNA ribozymes with peptidyl transferase properties (this gives the ribozyme a selective advantage)----->Formation of active sites at pre-polypeptides leads to the outphasing of RNA as the central catalytic molecule of pre-cellular life----->Ribozymes are retained in certain necessary functions like pre-ribosomal translation---->Ability of ribozymes to hold polypeptides allows for development of tRNA---->Mutual cooperation of tRNA and ribozymes allows for the creation of an mRNA based translation system----->This gives rise to the first vesicular membranes holding cooperative systems which resemble the modern system of transcription and translation, forming the precursors of bacterial organisms----->Natural selection of the replicative hereditary molecules in these pre-bacterial organisms allows for more complex protein-based functions such as pumps, regulated ion transport etc.----->Formation of the first bacteria
> link

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Am I not allowed to discuss any other topic?


 *Sure you can. I was just trying to reconcile the apparent inconsistency. *

----------


## inibo

I don't know how life started on Earth.  I haven't giving it a lot of though because my self understanding doesn't hang on questions that, however interesting they may be, aren't relevant to my everyday life.  All that being said it seems to me it would have to be either abiogenesis or seeding from somewhere else.  The second option just pushes the time frame of the origin of life further into the past, but the question concerned life on Earth, not life in the Universe.

----------


## Theocrat

> No, it wasn't "life appearing out of nothing". It was most likely simple chemical interactions that built upon each other until eventually you could call it life.


Thus, you have abiogenesis, which is life arising from non-life (chemicals).

----------


## Sheepdog11

> Thus, you have abiogenesis, which is life arising from non-life (chemicals).


Yes, and NOT spontaneous generation, which is complex life appearing as-is out of unrelated chemicals in present conditions.

----------


## idiom

Abiogenesis on Earth is currently in serious doubt. The more we dig the closer we find fossils to Earth event horizon of being uninhabitable.

Most Abiogenesis theories are now panspermic. If you think bio-chemistry is not very complex then you tend to postulate that life evolved on Mars or a moon somewhere and got bounced to Earth. 

If you believe bio-chemistry is complex then you tend to postulate theories that life here is the out growth of nano-tech probes flung out into space by another civilization. This civilization probably has a differnet basis for its life that was simpler to evolve.

Or you believe it was created by a being whose origins are not open to investigation.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Abiogenesis on Earth is currently in serious doubt. The more we dig the closer we find fossils to Earth event horizon of being uninhabitable.
> 
> Most Abiogenesis theories are now panspermic. If you think bio-chemistry is not very complex then you tend to postulate that life evolved on Mars or a moon somewhere and got bounced to Earth. 
> 
> If you believe bio-chemistry is complex then you tend to postulate theories that life here is the out growth of nano-tech probes flung out into space by another civilization. This civilization probably has a differnet basis for its life that was simpler to evolve.
> 
> Or you believe it was created by a being whose origins are not open to investigation.


 *As a layman I just tend to follow along wherever the evidence leads.  *

----------


## Josh_LA

> *As a layman I just tend to follow along wherever the evidence leads.  *


No you don't, because you don't know what counts as evidence. 

You want to wait until Dr. Paul is convinced that evolution is true for you to consider it. *Way to be scientific.*

The same way I tell you sky is blue is proof God is male, you don't see evidence unless you know what you're expecting.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Sure you can. I was just trying to reconcile the apparent inconsistency. *


sorry I missed the party, what inconsistency were you talking about?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> sorry I missed the party, what inconsistency were you talking about?


 * His disavowal in the evilution thread.*

----------


## idiom

> *As a layman I just tend to follow along wherever the evidence leads.  *


Well until we get results on Mars option one




> Most Abiogenesis theories are now panspermic. If you think bio-chemistry is not very complex then you tend to postulate that life evolved on Mars or a moon somewhere and got bounced to Earth.


Gets the evidentiary ticket.

Wow. Truth Warrior actually picked a position.

----------


## Bman

> Well until we get results on Mars option one
> 
> 
> 
> Gets the evidentiary ticket.
> 
> Wow. Truth Warrior actually picked a position.


MArs?  Venus would be a far better candidate.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Gets the evidentiary ticket.
> 
> Wow. Truth Warrior actually picked a position.


don't cheer too quick, this guy SAYS he wants evidence but he never knows what counts as evidence, he finally conceded in the last evolution thread that he wants to wait until Dr. Paul is convinced, not see "objective, deductive" evidence.

----------


## Sheepdog11

> don't cheer too quick, this guy SAYS he wants evidence but he never knows what counts as evidence, he finally conceded in the last evolution thread that he wants to wait until Dr. Paul is convinced, not see "objective, deductive" evidence.


Furthermore, whenever you give him evidence he won't even look at it, because he claims it doesn't fit his standards. But when you ask what his standards are, he'll just shout "SOP" and say you don't have proof.

It's a nice little bullet-proof fortress he's set up around his mind, and he's the only one who doesn't see it.

----------


## idiom

> MArs?  Venus would be a far better candidate.


Mars had a similar climate to Earth, but it started earlier and overlapped. A Mars transfer means Earth ready life might have had time to evolve under 'life is easy' models.

Our knowledge of Venus is even more limited. Anything is currently pretty valid, but Mars I think has the most abiogenesis people in its court, which is what Truth Warrior was after.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well until we get results on Mars option one
> 
> 
> 
> Gets the evidentiary ticket.
> 
> Wow. Truth Warrior actually picked a position.


*What position is that?*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> don't cheer too quick, this guy SAYS he wants evidence but he never knows what counts as evidence, he finally conceded in the last evolution thread that he wants to wait until Dr. Paul is convinced, not see "objective, deductive" evidence.


*Lying about me does NOTHING to prove your garbage pseudoscience.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Furthermore, whenever you give him evidence he won't even look at it, because he claims it doesn't fit his standards. But when you ask what his standards are, he'll just shout "SOP" and say you don't have proof.
> 
> It's a nice little bullet-proof fortress he's set up around his mind, and he's the only one who doesn't see it.


*Lying about me does NOTHING to prove your garbage pseudoscience.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Mars had a similar climate to Earth, but it started earlier and overlapped. A Mars transfer means Earth ready life might have had time to evolve under 'life is easy' models.
> 
> Our knowledge of Venus is even more limited. Anything is currently pretty valid, but Mars I think has the most abiogenesis people in its court, which is what Truth Warrior was after.


*Lost me dude.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No you don't, because you don't know what counts as evidence. 
> 
> You want to wait until Dr. Paul is convinced that evolution is true for you to consider it. *Way to be scientific.*
> 
> The same way I tell you sky is blue is proof God is male, you don't see evidence unless you know what you're expecting.


*Your distortions of what I actually wrote makes you a liar. So now why should I ever believe anything you have to say about anything? From past dealings with others of your pseudo scientific cultic persuasions that seems to be a very common attribute also.*

*If you can't/won't understand what you read, why should I trust your comprehension of your evolution study and reading?*

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Lying about me does NOTHING to prove your garbage pseudoscience.*


*lying about us lying about you does not prove your garbage, we never said you lied (correction, what I meant to say was, we never lied about you, but NOW you have lied about us),* you don't even know your terminology, then you say taxonomy is made up, macroevolution was never observed, and we SOP responses (as if the scientific method can or should be deviated), calling me naive without giving me JUST ONE EXAMPLE of bypassing peer review, asking ME to do research when I've been in this field for over 4 years.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Your distortions of what I actually wrote makes you a liar. So now why should I ever believe anything you have to say about anything? From past dealings with others of your pseudo scientific cultic persuasions that seems to be a very common attribute also.*
> 
> *If you can't/won't understand what you read, why should I trust your comprehension of your evolution study and reading?*


please correct me, state  your position again.

DID YOU NOT

 first ask for "objective, deductive evidence" without ONCE defining it (never told me what evidence you have about the sun and water either)

then later say, you want to wait for Dr. Paul?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *lying about us lying about you does not prove your garbage, we never said you lied,* you don't even know your terminology, then you say taxonomy is made up, macroevolution was never observed, and we SOP responses (as if the scientific method can or should be deviated), calling me naive without giving me JUST ONE EXAMPLE of bypassing peer review, asking ME to do research when I've been in this field for over 4 years.


*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## Josh_LA

> *"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*


same goes for you. you can't even point out where I lied. please just correct what I said so we can continue this discussion, or is it your turn to SOP?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> same goes for you. you can't even point out where I lied. please just correct what I said so we can continue this discussion, or is it your turn to SOP?


 *It's usually not any too smart to confuse haven't with can't. BTW, It WAS pointed out AND YOU know it.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> *It's usually not any too smart to confuse haven't with can't. BTW, It WAS pointed out AND YOU know it.*


I REALLY AM NOT too smart, so, please point it out again for me, I missed it. 

*PLEASE?!*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I REALLY AM NOT too smart, so, please point it out again for me, I missed it. 
> 
> *PLEASE?!*


 *Read the threads.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Read the threads.*


I've read every one of your posts, and my own, the fact you cannot even copy and paste what I *"lied"* shows YOU are the one with the incapacity to read and comprehend, not me.

*BUT, I AM STILL WILLING TO ADMIT MY MISTAKE, CAN'T YOU JUST SHOW ME AND SHUT ME UP?

SHOW ME WHAT I SAID, WHAT SHEEPDOG SAID, AND WHAT IS UNTRUE ABOUT WHAT WE SAID, THAT'LL CONSTITUTE A LIE. IS THAT A GOOD ENOUGH STANDARD TO MEET?*

----------


## Theocrat

Abiogenesis never happens in nature. It is based on wishful thinking by some evolutionists. It was disproven by the French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. Just let it go, O followers of the Darwinian cult.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Abiogenesis never happens in nature. It is based on wishful thinking by some evolutionists. It was disproven by the French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. Just let it go, O followers of the Darwinian cult.


Are  you actually so ignorant to confuse spontaneous generation with abiogenesis? 

I am not an expert on abiogenesis, but the best explanation of abiogenesis follows physical and chemical laws.

----------


## Theocrat

> Are  you actually so ignorant to confuse spontaneous generation with abiogenesis? 
> 
> I am not an expert on abiogenesis, but the best explanation of abiogenesis follows physical and chemical laws.


They're both synonymous, pointing towards the same idea that living organisms can somehow arrive out of non-living matter. If you want to say that one assumes it happens randomly, while the other presupposes the process through guided laws, that's fine. They both point to the same origin for life to begin, and that is from an inanimate substance. As I keep reminding you, *that is never observed in nature, and it can never happen*. Now, you can believe that, but don't call it a "scientific theory."

----------


## Sheepdog11

> Abiogenesis never happens in nature. It is based on wishful thinking by some evolutionists. It was disproven by the French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. Just let it go, O followers of the Darwinian cult.


I have replied to you twice about this issue now, what Pasteur disproved has NOTHING to do with the type of abiogenesis scientists are studying at the moment.




> They're both synonymous, pointing towards the same idea that living organisms can somehow arrive out of non-living matter. If you want to say that one assumes it happens randomly, while the other presupposes the process through guided laws, that's fine. They both point to the same origin for life to begin, and that is from an inanimate substance.


Can you point to "life" for me? And when I say "life" I don't mean those pesky "inanimate" (non-living) atoms that constitute all matter in the universe.

Life is made up of non-life that is arranged in a way that produces certain electrical and chemical responses according to the laws of nature. It's ridiculous to assert that life cannot come from non-life when life is a direct product of complex arrangements of non-life!




> As I keep reminding you, that is never observed in nature, and it can never happen.


That's a huge non-sequiter... "It's never observed, so it can't ever happen." Have anyone ever seen a person cut off his own hand and throw it off the Golden Gate Bridge? Not that I know of. Does that mean it can never happen? No, that's absurd!

We know that it's possible because it obeys the laws of nature.

Likewise, current ideas about abiogenesis (just like any other science) are based within the laws of nature.

----------


## idiom

FWIW Truth Warrior, Deductive evidence doesn't exist for anything. A Priori it doesn't exist because our basic observations of the world are inductive.

I hate to burst your bubble. I hope you haven't wasted your life looking for deductive evidence.

----------


## idiom

> They're both synonymous, pointing towards the same idea that living organisms can somehow arrive out of non-living matter. If you want to say that one assumes it happens randomly, while the other presupposes the process through guided laws, that's fine. They both point to the same origin for life to begin, and that is from an inanimate substance. As I keep reminding you, *that is never observed in nature, and it can never happen*. Now, you can believe that, but don't call it a "scientific theory."


God creating universes has never been observed. I would contend that it can happen, whereas you would deny that God could ever create a universe.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> FWIW Truth Warrior, Deductive evidence doesn't exist for anything. A Priori it doesn't exist because our basic observations of the world are inductive.
> 
> I hate to burst your bubble. I hope you haven't wasted your life looking for deductive evidence.


 *My that's an interesting deductive conclusion to arrive at.<IMHO> Of course you have the proof.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> They're both synonymous, pointing towards the same idea that living organisms can somehow arrive out of non-living matter.


Wrong, coming out of nothing anytime, anywhere and coming out of non-life in a rare condition are quite different.




> If you want to say that one assumes it happens randomly, while the other presupposes the process through guided laws, that's fine. They both point to the same origin for life to begin, and that is from an inanimate substance. As I keep reminding you, *that is never observed in nature, and it can never happen*. Now, you can believe that, but don't call it a "scientific theory."


A scientific theory is something that can be explained, supported and disproven.

What is your basis for "it can never happen"?

----------


## Josh_LA

> FWIW Truth Warrior, Deductive evidence doesn't exist for anything. A Priori it doesn't exist because our basic observations of the world are inductive.
> 
> I hate to burst your bubble. I hope you haven't wasted your life looking for deductive evidence.


I don't think he actually cares.

----------


## idiom

> I don't think he actually cares.


Yep, beyond trolling he is intellectually masturbating all over our forums.

----------


## idiom

> *My that's an interesting deductive conclusion to arrive at.<IMHO> Of course you have the proof.*


If you read slowly you will notice I presented an A Priori logical proof. The only deductive proofs available to us.

I hate to humble your opinion so often.

----------


## Sheepdog11

For Anyone Who Doesn't Understand It,
A collection of short, casual videos explaining current scientific understanding of abiogenesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo - by DonExodus2, doctoral degree in Evolutionary Biology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg - by cdk007, Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience and minor in chemistry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE - by Potholer54, 14 years as a science correspondent

If you don't have the patience to read a book, I strongly suggest viewing these and doing a small bit of complementary research to get a better grasp of the subject before attempting to discuss the topic.

----------


## Josh_LA

> For Anyone Who Doesn't Understand It,
> A collection of short, casual videos explaining current scientific understanding of abiogenesis:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo - by DonExodus2, doctoral degree in Evolutionary Biology
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg - by cdk007, Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience and minor in chemistry
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE - by Potholer54, 14 years as a science correspondent
> 
> If you don't have the patience to read a book, I strongly suggest viewing these and doing a small bit of complementary research to get a better grasp of the subject before attempting to discuss the topic.


I also recommend 
AronRa who has a series "FOundational Faleshoods of Creation"
ShanedK who has "Is evolution scientific?"
Thunderf00t "Why do people laugh at Creationists?"

But don't worry, Truth Warrior doesn't video

----------


## Sheepdog11

> I also recommend 
> AronRa who has a series "FOundational Faleshoods of Creation"
> ShanedK who has "Is evolution scientific?"
> Thunderf00t "Why do people laugh at Creationists?"
> 
> But don't worry, Truth Warrior doesn't video


Yes, very good videos, although they're not as focused on abiogenesis as the ones I linked to. Greatly informative nonetheless.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> If you read slowly you will notice I presented an A Priori logical proof. The only deductive proofs available to us.
> 
> I hate to humble your opinion so often.


*Well it's an axiomatic start.*  *What's THE syllogistic chain from THE generalized "LAW"?*

*That's why I said, "Of course you have the proof. ". Try reading it again ........ S L O W L Y.*

*That's what they are for. Enjoy!*

----------


## idiom

> *Well it's an axiomatic start.*  *What's THE syllogistic chain from THE generalized "LAW"?*
> 
> *That's why I said, "Of course you have the proof. ". Try reading it again ........ S L O W L Y.*
> 
> *That's what they are for. Enjoy!*


Wow.

You are _actually_ retreating into a sollipsistic hole because you have nothing to add to the conversation? Are you that devoid of original thought?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Wow.
> 
> You are _actually_ retreating into a sollipsistic hole because you have nothing to add to the conversation? Are you that devoid of original thought?


*Pick one of the following options:*

*A) I don't know.*
*B) I don't care.*


*C) Your reply was UNINTERESTING, NON RESPONSIVE and INADEQUATE.*

----------


## idiom

A) You don't know.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> A) You don't know.


 *Fine. Works for me.*

----------


## idiom

Good. Then you have matured to where you can recognize your own limitations.

Luckily for us, your ignorance is not a restriction on others.

You have stated that you believe that lfie comes only from life. This contradicts a lot of your own posts, but thats your problem.

How do you resolve, in your own mind, any first cause issues that might arise from a superficial glance at your position?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Good. Then you have matured to where you can recognize your own limitations.
> 
> Luckily for us, your ignorance is not a restriction on others.
> 
> You have stated that you believe that lfie comes only from life. This contradicts a lot of your own posts, but thats your problem.
> 
> How do you resolve, in your own mind, any first cause issues that might arise from a superficial glance at your position?


 *Are you an idiom savanm? * 

*"If you're going to misquote me, please misquote me correctly." -- Yogi Berra*

*One of your problems is in providing me with all of the links to them.  Put up or shut up. Links talks, BS walks.*

*I don't presume to scan some realms. Just not quite that arrogant. Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy? Let's put that another way, is the cosmos limited, bound and constrained by **** sapiens capacity for reason, logic and science?*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Are you and idiom savanm?*


lol!

----------


## Josh_LA

> *I don't presume to scan some realms. Just not quite that arrogant. Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy? Let's put that another way, is the cosmos limited, bound and constrained by **** sapiens capacity for reason, logic and science?*


Definitely not, which is exactly idiom's point, luckily your lack of understanding for science and evolution is not restricting those who can, do and will understand the beauty of science. We don't claim to know very much either, but to question what we know about evolution, with no basis you can apply to other places is not what we do.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Definitely not, which is exactly idiom's point, luckily your lack of understanding for science and evolution is not restricting those who can, do and will understand the beauty of science. We don't claim to know very much either, but to question what we know about evolution, with no basis you can apply to other places is not what we do.


 *Question authority. Question everything. How about providing an example of abiogenesis? Then prove it, with your "sterling" credibility reputation.*

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context*

----------


## idiom

> *Question authority. Question everything. How about providing an example of abiogenesis? Then prove it, with your "sterling" credibility reputation.*
> 
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context*


You are saying that Abiogenesis can't(strong) or didn't(weak) happen. I am questioning your assertion.

----------


## inibo

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg - by cdk007, Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience and minor in chemistry


That one was very good.  Thank you.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You are saying that Abiogenesis can't(strong) or didn't(weak) happen. I am questioning your assertion.


 *Question away, that post was NOT directed to you. MYOB!  You've got your own problem to solve. Ya got all of those links rounded up yet?*

----------


## Chester Copperpot

i was taught in school that abiogenesis was impossible and occurred because of faulty conditions.. of course since then, it seems that abiogenesis is indeed possible and has happened before.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> i was taught in school that abiogenesis was impossible and occurred because of faulty conditions.. of course since then, it seems that abiogenesis is indeed possible and has happened before.


 *Where and when? What was it? Evolution ( so called ) has NOW outcast, disavowed and abandoned abiogenesis. Origins of species, but NOT of the first ones. *

----------


## Sheepdog11

> i was taught in school that abiogenesis was impossible and occurred because of faulty conditions.. of course since then, it seems that abiogenesis is indeed possible and has happened before.


How can something be impossible, yet still occur?

----------


## Josh_LA

> How can something be impossible, yet still occur?


I think he meant, impossible by the natural conditions we can conceive of (thus only imaginable if you invoke supernatural miracles)

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Question authority. Question everything. How about providing an example of abiogenesis? Then prove it, with your "sterling" credibility reputation.*
> 
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context*


I don't think I quoted anybody out of context, if so, I apologize and please correct me. 

I'm not going to discuss abiogenesis with you, not only because I am not an expert in it, but you don't even seem to have a basis for understanding evolution, so no need to jump ahead.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Question away, that post was NOT directed to you. MYOB!  You've got your own problem to solve. Ya got all of those links rounded up yet?*


this is how you respond to people who want to ask for clarification? MYOB? your attitude makes good science! If he does post links, it won't be directed at you and it'll be nice if you MYOB (oh wait, this is your thread, sorry)

----------


## Truth Warrior

> this is how you respond to people who want to ask for clarification? MYOB? your attitude makes good science! If he does post links, it won't be directed at you and it'll be nice if you MYOB (oh wait, this is your thread, sorry)


 *Your attitude doesn't and has nothing to do with "making good science".*

----------


## idiom

> *Question away, that post was NOT directed to you. MYOB!  You've got your own problem to solve. Ya got all of those links rounded up yet?*


Josh was dicussing _my_ point. So your response is also a response to me.

You started this thread making strong absolute statments about the history of the universe (read the op if you have forgotten already).

However some clarification would be nice.

By your derivation you seem to indicate that DNA based life has always existed.

However life can flow from other forms of life that are non carbon based or a conceivably supernatural. This would be a valid interpretation of abiogenesis as meaning _at least_ xenobiogenesis.

Can you understand something that doesn't have a link? I can add citations at every point.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Your attitude doesn't and has nothing to do with "making good science".*


You can't even see my sarcasm? Are you kidding?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You can't even see my sarcasm? Are you kidding?


*It's kinda tough without the "", a limitation of the medium.<IMHO> I don't think you WERE kidding.*

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> *Where and when? What was it? Evolution ( so called ) has NOW outcast, disavowed and abandoned abiogenesis. Origins of species, but NOT of the first ones. *


Im talking about Andrew Crosse and his discovery of Arcari. I think the spelling is accurate...

perhaps a website is in order.. 1 sec..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse

this wiki disputes some of the findings of his experiment, however Ive read plenty of scientists back in the day recreated his experiment.

Interesting reading for anybody who hasnt heard of him. check him out.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Im talking about Andrew Crosse and his discovery of Arcari. I think the spelling is accurate...
> 
> perhaps a website is in order.. 1 sec..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse
> 
> this wiki disputes some of the findings of his experiment, however Ive read plenty of scientists back in the day recreated his experiment.
> 
> Interesting reading for anybody who hasnt heard of him. check him out.


*Thanks!   I will.*

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Here is a relevant part for all to simplify it, it seems he stumbled upon the building blocks of life, amino acids mixed with a little electricity, and a small mite-like insect was the result.




> *Controversy*
> 
> A few months after the 1836 Bristol meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Crosse had been conducting another electrocrystallization experiment when, on the 26th day of the experiment he saw what he described as "the perfect insect, standing erect on a few bristles which formed its tail." More creatures appeared and two days later they moved their legs. Over the next few weeks, hundreds more appeared. They crawled around the table and hid themselves when they could find a shelter. Crosse identified them as being part of genus acarus.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *It's kinda tough without the "", a limitation of the medium.<IMHO> I don't think you WERE kidding.*


I would think you were cynical enough to know I don't praise you that easily.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> i would think you were cynical enough to know i don't praise you that easily.


 *< yawn >*

*"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those who don't have it." -- George Bernard Shaw*

----------


## idiom

Well as Truth Warrior is no longer answering questions, proving by default that links are required for comprehension, I will rephrase this talking point for wider consumption:




> By your derivation you seem to indicate that DNA based life has always existed.
> 
> However life can flow from other forms of life that are non carbon based or a conceivably supernatural. This would be a valid interpretation of abiogenesis as meaning at least xenobiogenesis.


If we look at "life has always come from life" does that mean a position where the universe has no start? Certainly the creationist position is that God has no start, therefore life has always come form life in that sense.

However since the Big Bang theory showed up an infinite universe has taken a bit of a dump amongst atheists.

Thoughts?

----------


## Sheepdog11

> If we look at "life has always come from life" does that mean a position where the universe has no start? Certainly the creationist position is that God has no start, therefore life has always come form life in that sense.
> 
> However since the Big Bang theory showed up an infinite universe has taken a bit of a dump amongst atheists.
> 
> Thoughts?


I tend to be a proponent of the B-theory of time, in which time is the same as any other dimension.

Thus even if time began and ceased to exist, it doesn't mean the universe necessarily had a beginning.

For example. imagine that you have just woken up and you're on a road, with nothing else surrounding it. You have no idea whether the road goes on forever in both directions, or whether it has a beginning. You walk along the road and indeed discover that it has a beginning... but does that tell you anything about how long the road has actually existed there?

Same concept with time... it may have a beginning (the big bang) and possibly an end (insert doomsday conjecture here), but that doesn't mean it hasn't always existed.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Here is a relevant part for all to simplify it, it seems he stumbled upon the building blocks of life, amino acids mixed with a little electricity, and a small mite-like insect was the result.


*I read up some on Andrew Crosse. Pretty interesting.<IMHO>  Would you happen to know when and where the last time was that his experiment was successfully repeated?*

*FYI, and in a somewhat similar vein ... http://www.the-electric-universe.info/*

*Enjoy!*

*Thanks!*

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> *I read up some on Andrew Crosse. Pretty interesting.<IMHO>  Would you happen to know when and where the last time was that his experiment was successfully repeated?*
> 
> *FYI, and in a somewhat similar vein ... http://www.the-electric-universe.info/*
> 
> *Enjoy!*
> 
> *Thanks!*


probably mid 1800s..  On the information Ive read years ago, Crosse as just relaying his findings, but he took such a beating from the rest of the scientific community, I dont think he ever did anything else.. If he did, he didnt publicize it. Sort of reminscient of the creator of Coral Castles - Edward Leedskalnin.

Ive read that several others - well known at the time recreated his results, but again these had to be back in the 1800s around the same time as Crosse.

If you have an interest in recreating this experiment, Ill try to dig up anything I can on it, and pass it on to you.

Sometimes IDeas like this lie dormant for centuries before being picked back up.. but you know, if this really is a form of abiogenesis, it might actually be the beginnings for nanotechnology. I think theres a chance there.

maybe we can collaborate on something.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> probably mid 1800s.. On the information Ive read years ago, Crosse as just relaying his findings, but he took such a beating from the rest of the scientific community, I dont think he ever did anything else.. If he did, he didnt publicize it. Sort of reminscient of the creator of Coral Castles - Edward Leedskalnin.
> 
> Ive read that several others - well known at the time recreated his results, but again these had to be back in the 1800s around the same time as Crosse.
> 
> If you have an interest in recreating this experiment, Ill try to dig up anything I can on it, and pass it on to you.
> 
> Sometimes IDeas like this lie dormant for centuries before being picked back up.. but you know, if this really is a form of abiogenesis, it might actually be the beginnings for nanotechnology. I think theres a chance there.
> 
> maybe we can collaborate on something.


 *From the stories I've read, I find Ed and his Coral Castle fascinating also.* 

*As a capitalist, I'm kind of intrigued about the marketing possibilities of a do it yourself "Crosse Life Kit". "Create Life at Home in Your Garage". Maybe I could manage to get a Ron Popiel-type infomercial to front for it.* 

*Thanks!*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *From the stories I've read, I find Ed and his Coral Castle fascinating also.* 
> 
> *As a capitalist, I'm kind of intrigued about the marketing possibilities of a do it yourself "Crosse Life Kit". "Create Life at Home in Your Garage". Maybe I could manage to get a Ron Popiel-type infomercial to front for it.* 
> 
> *Thanks!*


If you pull that off, PM me and I'll help you with packaging design, logos, print material, and commercial music.  I'm a capitalist too.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> If you pull that off, PM me and I'll help you with packaging design, logos, print material, and commercial music. I'm a capitalist too.


 *Darn, if only we were Republicans we could get us some ot them FREE grants. *

----------

