scrappy Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 scrappy; I would say that if all of the right conditions occur, the chance of "life" spontaneously emerging is 100%. How is this notion wrong? I would say that without having any scientific appreciation for the enabling principles of abiogenesis we wouldn't know what chances life has for any kind of spontaneously emergence on a planet. I'd be very reluctant to say that something has a 100% probability of occurring if I didn't know anything about the principles upon which the event in question occures.
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) I'm quoting SCIENTIFIC knowledge from text-books here. It is scientific standpoint that life EMERGES SPONTANEOUSLY from inanimate matter. This is not true, and borders on (even potentially crosses the border of) strawman. I challenge you to name even ONE textbook that states that, give us the exact quote, or retract it. I accept the challenge, mate. Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Spontaneous_generation By definition ABIOGENESIS = SPONTANEOUS emergence. It means OPPOSITE of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Therefore you are sorely confused or you believe in God, pick one. a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis –noun Biology. 1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. You said that scientific textbooks stated this. I asked you support it. You quoted wikipedia and a dictionary. Sorry. Please try again. Check and Mate. Wikipedia IS scientific textbook, articles are taken out of text-books and you can see reference at the bottom of each article, stop insulting yourself and buy new textbooks if yours say differently. Read some dictionary and stop pretending, you're making your adolescence very obvious by exposing your limited vocabulary. Wow. You're quite a character, aren't you? Wikipedia =/= scientific textbook. If it cites one, then THAT is what you should share in response to my request. Either way, it's hysterical that you keep calling me adolescent considering your posts. I'm about done with you now. You're obviously more inclined toward flaming than toward education. I asked a simple question, and you responded with childish insults. Take it easy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSome very huge parts to the puzzle of life are still missing. Otherwise, we'd be making it from scratch in the laboratory by now. Like this? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=367962#post367962 . There is still one good page around: http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html <...> I'll do better than that. I'll give you a recipe and you can make life in your own kitchen. Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf ). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15-60 minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. <...> Amino acids can be made by at least 3 ways: 1. In a thunderstorm in an atmosphere that has carbon dioxide, ammonia, water, nitrogen. In other words, the Miller-Urey reactions done in an oxidizing atmosphere. 2. At hydrothermal vents. Amino acids are being made there today. 3. On comets and delivered to the early earth by soft collisions. Amino acids have been observed on comets today. <...> This is from Pappellis' website and was part of a lecture given to his class in "Origin of Life". I copied it before the page was removed: "In the late 1950s, Fox and his associates were describing how they synthesized thermal proteins (6) and the conversion of these into protocells (proteinoid microspheres) that exhibited the attributes of life. That these were simulations of natural events was to be suggested. By the 1980s, they were considered to be alive (protocells, the smallest unit of protolife)(7). Only the 1996 discovery of life on Mars would eclipse the findings of Yanagawa and Kabayashi (8) that the thermal protein protocell could be synthesized by simulations of hydrothermal systems!! " "Thermal oligo/polypeptides were found to be highly ordered in both primary sequence and composition. Even the number of repeatable units in thermal oligo/polypeptides was greater than that isolated from modem proteins. The self-assembled protocells also showed more order than cells that emerged later by evolution. Thus, thermal oligo/peptides were informed molecules that yielded protocellular units when hydrated (protocellular boundary = wall-membrane), multizymes (metabolically active molecules capable of catalyzing multiple categories of reactions common to metabolism in modem cells), molecules of inheritance (storage and transmission of information needed to sustain life in one and many generations), substrates for growth and reproduction, and the conversion of solar energy to chemical bond energy. The ability of protocellular boundaries to exhibit membrane potentials (action potentials), to function as semipermeable barriers, and sites of syntheses is believed to be due to the amphiphilic natures of thermal oligo/polypeptides and their porous nature enabling diffusion to occur in very short periods of time. " http://mccoy.lib.siu.edu/projects/bio315/section2.htm Edited January 22, 2009 by iNow Consecutive post/s merged.
Sione Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) I would say that without having any scientific appreciation for the enabling principles of abiogenesis we wouldn't know what chances life has for any kind of spontaneously emergence on a planet. I'd be very reluctant to say that something has a 100% probability of occurring if I didn't know anything about the principles upon which the event in question occures. Please, explain what part do you not understand? ANYTHING that is not created by INTELLIGENT BEING = SPONTANEOUS spon⋅ta⋅ne⋅ous –adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency 3. arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting. 4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous. 5. produced by natural process. Please, what part of the DEFINITION is still not clear to you? It doesn't matter WHERE. Planet, moon, universe, big-bang... it was either CREATED by BEING or it EMERGED SPONTANEOUSLY, naturally! There is no 'C', you simply must pick ONE of these two: a.) by INTELLIGENT BEING b.) SPONTANEOUSLY (by itself, naturally) ...otherwise you refuse to communicate human language defined by DICTIONARY. Edited January 22, 2009 by Sione
Sione Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) The very short version is: nucleotide polymers do not equal self-replication does not equal genetic code... So' date=' you still manage to believe in God, even with all that proposed knowledge of yours, eh? Anyway, I think you already addressed your statement when you later contradicted to it, by saying this: -"I can synthesize any number of compounds in the lab that will spontaneously polymerize; even some with nucleobases attached... // ....HOWEVER, these things, after they have 'spontaneously polymerized', do NOT necessarily "self replicate" or undergo the process of self replication." [b']NECESSARILY[/b], my friend, makes the whole difference here.... millions of years... billions... infinity... With infinity, NOT NECESSARILY = EVENTUALLY. ok? Taking that further, no one has yet been able to figure how to make a "self replicating" or a "life-mimicking molecule" (if you want to call it that) that can assemble itself from simpler components than two halves of itself. Pay attention! Harvard Team Creates the World's 1st Synthesized Cells http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html - "...If it sounds hideously unlikely, be aware that some Harvard researchers, including Harvard Medical School's Jack Szostak, have managed exactly that. Mixing some fatty acids and DNA in a test tube of water, they found that the lipid molecules formed a crude ring around the information-rich core. Even more strikingly, nucleotides added to the solution successfully entered the cell and replicated the DNA within a day." Edited January 22, 2009 by Sione
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I don't think anyone can say that I didn't warn them.
Recommended Posts