27 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree evolution needs to be testable, and also that it can be confirmed by what we see in the earths sediment. In Millers experiment there was cross-reaction with other chemicals that resulted in a non life friendly sludge. Even with a more realistic recipe of gases you will still find cross-reactions because it is unavoidable, even in highly controlled (intelligently designed) experiments. Assuming a sea full of amino acids means also assuming they did not react with other chemicals, and there's no reason why we should assume that because Millers experiment clearly showed that would happen.
You have to be very careful using common sense in science, it's not a great guide. What really counts is experimental evidence.
For the first couple of billion years the Earth's atmosphere was reducing, it was only with the rise of the photosynthesisers that we got a significant amount of oxygen in our atmosphere (with implications for searches for e ...[text shortened]... mething closer to quantum theory than classical physics, so common sense is not a great guide.
We should also be able to find high concentrations of nitrogen in early layers of sediment because amino acids are nitrogen-rich, but the early layers we've managed to uncover are relatively low in nitrogen. If evidence of high concentrations of nitrogen (which we should be finding) is there, we haven't found it yet. All we have in fact found are relatively low concentrations of nitrogen. None of this disproves evolution, but it obviously doesn't go a long way toward confirming it either.
It doesn't take common sense to see what the evidence shows and what we should be seeing, or common sense to know how cross-reactions do happen. But I think it does take common sense to know you shouldn't just throw out data that doesn't support a theory, because sooner or later someone will come along to wave that dirty laundry in our faces. It makes more sense to look at everything and let the evidence point where it will, whether we like it or not. Because if evolution is true, the evidence will eventually point in that direction. But if it's not, then the evidence will point somewhere else.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtCommon sense is better than no sense at all.
You have to be very careful using common sense in science, it's not a great guide. What really counts is experimental evidence.
For the first couple of billion years the Earth's atmosphere was reducing, it was only with the rise of the photosynthesisers that we got a significant amount of oxygen in our atmosphere (with implications for searches for e ...[text shortened]... mething closer to quantum theory than classical physics, so common sense is not a great guide.
The Instructor
27 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm assuming the miller experiment was repeated using various recipes of the likely gases. If so, then what did they find?
You have to remember this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces, which has already been explained to me as having nothing to do with the study of evolution. All this experiment was looki ...[text shortened]... treme circumstances[/i], you of all people should be able to see what is wrong with that logic.
I'm assuming the miller experiment was repeated using various recipes of the likely gases. If so, then what did they find?
look it up.
You have to remember this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces,
I don't think so because they clearly were not expecting life to arise from within their experiment.
All this experiment was looking for was some basic building block (or blocks) of life, which does not by itself prove the possibility of the existence of a simple cell.
But is does prove that the building blocks were there for the formation of the first photocell.
The term simple cell is itself a misnomer, knowing what we know today about how a cell functions and its complexity.
-and the term simple protocell is NOT a misnomer.
There are cells that can live under extreme conditions, and this is often cited as a reason why life could have begun under extreme circumstances. This is not logical, because if you say Life can exist under extreme circumstances, therefore life was able to begin under extreme circumstances, you of all people should be able to see what is wrong with that logic.
This is just a very stupid straw man. NONE of us believe nor are saying that life must have began under “extreme circumstances” because life can live in “extreme circumstances”.
So if that is the thing you are saying (in your previous post) that we believe that you are questioning here, we don't believe it.
Many of us, myself included, think the first protocell probably developed in what I would call 'relatively calm conditions' such as in a tidal pool. There is no reason to think life MUST have necessarily started in very extreme conditions in particular and none of us are claiming the contrary.
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyIt proves that an intelligent being superior to man must have created the building blocks of life, since we can't do it.I'm assuming the miller experiment was repeated using various recipes of the likely gases. If so, then what did they find?
look it up.You have to remember this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces,
I don't think so because they clearly were not expecting life to arise ...[text shortened]... started in very extreme conditions in particular and none of us are claiming the contrary.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsActually it proves no such thing.
It proves that an intelligent being superior to man must have created the building blocks of life, since we can't do it.
The Instructor
Us being unable to do something in no way proves that it could only be done by something smarter than us.
Partly because their was a time in the past where we couldn't do anything we currently do today... (fly, go into space, make fire, ect)
But also there are things we can't (currently) do that we know happen in the natural world without any intelligent intervention.
We can't (currently) build a net energy producing fusion reactor despite a great many really smart people working really really hard on the problem.
However the sun (and every other star) happily does net energy fusion simply by being really really big while being made of hydrogen. No intelligence or design involved.
Stars are natural fusion reactors that emerge simply from the laws of physics acting on clouds of gas.
The fact that we can't do something does not prove that it could only be done by something smarter than us...
However we CAN make the building blocks of life.
We do it all the time, it's trivially easy to do.
We have also detected these building blocks being made in the clouds of gas between the stars, and in comets and asteroids.
We have detected their formation in experiments recreating conditions found in the early earth and seen them being formed where those conditions (or similar) still exist on the earth (hydrothermal vents for example).
So you are not just wrong, you are completely and utterly hilariously wrong on every single point.
Originally posted by RJHinds
It proves that an intelligent being superior to man must have created the building blocks of life, since we can't do it.
The Instructor
It proves that an intelligent being superior to man must have created the building blocks of life, since we can't do it.
Both the premise and the conclusion of the above statement is clearly false.
Lets start with the premise:
The building blocks of life are such things as amino acids, fatty acids, sugars, RNA bases and DNA bases. All these building blocks of life can be and HAVE been, albeit only on very rare occasions, synthesized in some laboratories. It just hasn't been done often because there isn't normally much point of doing it given the fact that it is vastly easier to extract them from natural organic matter that already exists.
But the mere fact that they have been produced in the lab disproves your premise that “ we can't do it”
Now for your conclusion:
Lets say, hypothetically, we have never made those building blocks. Just for starters, that wouldn't mean that we never will. But, we also haven't made a volcano erupt or made a vast snow storm or made a hurricane or made a sun spot or made fossils or made coal.
So all these must have been NOT made by natural forces but made by “ an intelligent being superior to man”? Absurd.
28 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by humyI don't think so because they clearly were not expecting life to arise from within their experiment.I'm assuming the miller experiment was repeated using various recipes of the likely gases. If so, then what did they find?
look it up.You have to remember this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces,
I don't think so because they clearly were not expecting life to arise started in very extreme conditions in particular and none of us are claiming the contrary.
You don't think what so? You're agreeing with me and arguing with me at the same time. Don't be ridiculous. I just as clearly showed they weren't expecting life to arise from their experiment, unless you believe finding a bulding block is the same as life arising within their experiment. Is that what you thought?
What did you think I was talking about when I said All this experiment was looking for was some basic building block (or blocks) of life, which does not by itself prove the possibility of the existence of a simple cell.. Does that tell you I was saying they were trying to create life in a bottle?
Try reading what I said instead of twisting it into something else. Anyone else reading it can clearly see what I was saying. Well, almost anyone else.
But [it] does prove that the building blocks were there for the formation of the first photocell.
No it doesn't, unless you believe the first photocell could have been formed from only one or two amino acids.
This is just a very stupid straw man. NONE of us believe nor are saying that life must have began under “extreme circumstances” because life can live in “extreme circumstances”.
So if that is the thing you are saying (in your previous post) that we believe that you are questioning here, we don't believe it.
I said There are cells that can live under extreme conditions, and this is often cited as a reason why life could have begun under extreme circumstances. I did not say any of you said that or believe that, I said it is often cited. And don't try telling me it isn't because I've been a part of discussions like this one where it has been cited. Try extracting the meaning from the entire context, instead of picking and choosing so it can mean what you want it to mean. Do you really think I can't see the strawman hiding behind your accusation of a strawman?
Many of us, myself included, think the first protocell probably developed in what I would call 'relatively calm conditions' such as in a tidal pool. There is no reason to think life MUST have necessarily started in very extreme conditions in particular and none of us are claiming the contrary.
Then clearly many of you, including yourself, don't have a clue what I mean by extreme conditions. I wasn't talking about the difference between tidal pools and rough seas, I was talking about a toxic atmosphere and chemicals in the sea, as well as toxic conditions created when cross reactions take place.
Clearly you intend to ignore anything even remotely related to science, and will continue to pepper your messages with strawman attacks and anti-religion rants. You are not alone. I've seen most of the people you count yourself a part of use this same strategy when they get lost, and don't know how to counter an arugment using only their knowlege and understanding of science.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyIt proves that an intelligent being superior to man must have created the [b]building blocksof life, since we can't do it.
Both the premise and the conclusion of the above statement is clearly false.
Lets start with the premise:
The building blocks of life are such things as amino acids, fatty acids, sugars, RNA bases and ...[text shortened]... en NOT made by natural forces but made by “ an intelligent being superior to man”? Absurd.[/b]I am unaware that all the building blocks of life have been made by man and you have produced no evidence that they have. But even if man were able to produce those bulding blocks. That would only mean it requires an intelligent designer to do it. And then there is also the problem of assembling those building blocks of life and actually causing something that was not alive to be alive. That definitely has not been done and if man with his intelligence can not do it, then it is not very likely a random undirected evilutionary process is going to have even a fraction of the same chance as man.
Well we have made fossils and we have made coal in the labs. But you are correct on the other things we have not made. However I never said anything about those things and they are irrelevant to man being able to make something that is non-living come to life or that a non-living thing would come to life by some evilutionary process.
The Instructor
28 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I don't think so because they clearly were not expecting life to arise from within their experiment.
You don't think what so? You're agreeing with me and arguing with me at the same time. Don't be ridiculous. I just as clearly showed they weren't expecting life to arise from their experiment, unless you believe finding a bulding block is to counter an arugment using only their knowlege and understanding of science.[/b]
I just as clearly showed they weren't expecting life to arise from their experiment, unless you believe finding a bulding block is the same as life arising within their experiment.
You had just said:
“...You have to remember this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces, ...”
So I then said:
“I don't think so because they clearly were not expecting life to arise from within their experiment. “
which seems a perfectly reasonable response to me. The operative words above here are I and “because” -i.e. I was NOT saying that you said (nor believe) they were expecting life to arise from their experiment but rather I “ don't think so” i.e. I don't believe that “this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces” and the reason why I don't believe that is because “they clearly were not expecting life to arise from within their experiment“.
So I wasn't twisting anything. Clear now?
But [it] does prove that the building blocks were there for the formation of the first photocell.
No it doesn't, unless you believe the first photocell could have been formed from only one or two amino acids.
Actually, we now know that many amino acids, not just “only one and two”, formed then. In addition, there is the real possibility that the first viable protocell was so simple that it didn't even have nor need amino acids! The only building blocks it may have had are fatty acids and RNA-like bases. It also would probably not had nor needed any DNA.
I said There are cells that can live under extreme conditions, and this is often cited as a reason why life could have begun under extreme circumstances. I did not say any of you said that or believe that, I said it is often cited.
No, it hasn't often been cited. It would rarely be cited by good scientists if ever that:
“Life can exist under extreme circumstances, therefore life was able to begin under extreme circumstances, “
because that above is OBVIOUSLY just stupidly flawed. So why would you even mention it unless as an attempt of a straw man?
Then clearly many of you, including yourself, don't have a clue what I mean by extreme conditions.
The term “ extreme conditions” is rather vague and I didn't see you elaborate until now.
I wasn't talking about the difference between tidal pools and rough seas, I was talking about a toxic atmosphere and chemicals in the sea, as well as toxic conditions created when cross reactions take place.
The atmosphere and oceans of early-Earth would have obviously been toxic to most of life that exists today. But obviously would not have been toxic to the first protocell so how toxic it was to life that exists today isn't really considered to be a relevant issue to the issue of how the first life began.
The first protocells wouldn't even had any respiration process which would mean they wouldn't needed free oxygen and any chemicals in the environment couldn't interfere, like many chemical that existed then like like cyanide etc do with modern life, with the respiration process because that respiration process didn't exist then. This would have been just one of the many reasons why chemicals such as cyanide would not have been toxic to protocells but is toxic to modern life.
28 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I am unaware that all the building blocks of life have been made by man and you have produced no evidence that they have. But even if man were able to produce those bulding blocks. That would only mean it requires an intelligent designer to do it. And then there is also the problem of assembling those building blocks of life and actually causing something ...[text shortened]... fe or that a non-living thing would come to life by some evilutionary process.
The Instructor
I am unaware that all the building blocks of life have been made by man and you have produced no evidence that they have.
What? Are you implying that, in the whole history of science, none of those very simple chemical building blocks, despite them being so simple, can be and have ever been chemically produce in any lab anywhere!? Absurd!
Here is just a tiny bit of that evidence:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html
“Amino acids are created in laboratory
1953
“
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/uracil.html
“NASA Reproduces a Building Block of Life in Laboratory. “
http://wyrdscience.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/synthesis-of-organic-building-blocks-in-lab-provide-support-for-rna-world/
“Synthesis of organic building blocks in lab “
So now you know -right?
But even if man were able to produce those bulding blocks.
They HAVE produced those building blocks! I have just shown evidence of that.
That would only mean it requires an intelligent designer to do it.
Rubbish! For example, plants regularly synthesis their own amino acids and yet a plant has no intelligence whatsoever. Also, many meteors have traces of the building blocks of life that spontaneously were generated via natural forces in space -again, no intelligence involved there whatsoever. Your 'logic' doesn't make any sense here whatsoever.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYour ramblings give me the impression that you have no idea of the complexity of life and are still almost as backward as Darwin was in respect to his understanding of the living cell. It would do you good to learn something about what you are trying to debate. The following is a three part video to start you off:I just as clearly showed they weren't expecting life to arise from their experiment, unless you believe finding a bulding block is the same as life arising within their experiment.
You had just said:
“...You have to remember [b]this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces, ...”
So I then ...[text shortened]... as cyanide would not have been toxic to protocells but is toxic to modern life.[/b]
Irreducible complexity of the Cell shatters the Darwinist myth and evolution
Part 2 of 3
Part 3 of 3
The Instructor
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsGee, more creationist agenda's. So clear and guileless.
Your ramblings give me the impression that you have no idea of the complexity of life and are still almost as backward as Darwin was in respect to his understanding of the living cell. It would do you good to learn something about what you are trying to debate. The following is a three part video to start you off:
Irreducible complexity of the Cell shat ...[text shortened]... watch?v=6u84vv0pdm8
Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ujCYiyqe98
The Instructor