Abiogenesis

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why?

Because man is not evolving. Those with an agenda to promote are grasping at straws in order to keep the charade going. According to them, cleverness is a gift of natural selection and appears to be gettin' stronger... obviously wishful thinking.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because man is not evolving. Those with an agenda to promote are grasping at straws in order to keep the charade going. According to them, cleverness is a gift of natural selection and appears to be gettin' stronger... obviously wishful thinking.

Of course man is evolving. Are you claiming that a) there is no mutation in humans or b) human reproduction is not affected by the environment?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Of course man is evolving. Are you claiming that a) there is no mutation in humans or b) human reproduction is not affected by the environment?

Let me be a little more clear: man is not becoming another species.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let me be a little more clear: man is not becoming another species.

Well that's true. For that to happen we'd need two or more groups of humans who do not interbreed for a very, very long time - and even then scientists probably would interfere.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because man is not evolving. Those with an agenda to promote are grasping at straws in order to keep the charade going. According to them, cleverness is a gift of natural selection and appears to be gettin' stronger... obviously wishful thinking.

Still a little opaque - who, with what agenda?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Still a little opaque - who, with what agenda?

Figure it out for yourself, Scott. Read the article and come to your own conclusions.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It's spelled [b]abiogenesis. a- means without; -bio- means life; - genesis means "the beginning". The origin of matter is no more of a difficulty than the origin of God. In fact the God idea adds another "step" in the process which violates Occam's Razor, a tool everyone uses on a day to day basis.[/b]

Has anyone told God that his existance violates Occam's Razor? You can if you like. I, however, am not so bold. By the way, thank you for correcting my spelling. It can be pretty attroscsiousse at times.

I, of coarse, disagree with your assumption that the existence of God makes it harder to explain the origins of the universe. Our existence is limited by the four deminsions in which we exist. What if there are other deminsions that God could exist? After all, God is a spirit according to those of faith. We, however, are limited to the physical universe and the constrants associated with matter. Time is just such a limiting deminsion in which matter exists. By the very definition of time it must have a begining. How then could time begin? Scientists just refer to the Big Bang that exploded out of thin air and just walk away. Problem solved. However, how did the Big Bang come about? God could have existed outside the deminsion of time and created time by creating the known universe. If so, all that was needed was for matter to be created. At the time matter was created, the four deminsions would have also been created to contain that matter. Problem solved. God's existence previous to the begining of time is refered to as eternal, meaning an existance before, during, and after the existance of time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Figure it out for yourself, Scott. Read the article and come to your own conclusions.

I only see a little bit of writing detailing the fact that the scientific community is divided about where human evolution may go in the future. Personally, I have no idea. Doesn't seem to be any agenda though - i can't work out who'd be the benefactor in such a case either....

Originally posted by whodey
Has anyone told God that his existance violates Occam's Razor? You can if you like. I, however, am not so bold. By the way, thank you for correcting my spelling. It can be pretty attroscsiousse at times.

I, of coarse, disagree with your assumption that the existence of God makes it harder to explain the origins of the universe. Our existence is limite ...[text shortened]... me matter was created, the four deminsions would have also been created to contain that matter.

I already explained this - causality is only a factor within the universe. You cannot open a packing case with the crowbar inside it, neither can you unpack a 'cause' for the universe where time doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, that's what I meant. See you know where I'm coming from.

I also agree with you, those are two different subjects.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Abiogenesis isn't "without evidence". For example is we look at the chemical composition of rocks from the time (and therefore the composition of the oceanic environment that it was formed in) then we see a remarkable similarity between the two. This isn't the only time that you get these concurrences between phenomena. Did you know that human cell c ...[text shortened]... question ro be sure, but not one that requires me to "jump to the conclusion of god".

Has anyone really thought about the implications of abiogenesis in terms of common sense? We supposidly came from the sea, but formed first in a puddle of goo and then at some time decided to go for a swim. You never hear the arguement that life started in the sea. The sea is a violent and hostile place and not suitable to the imagined protective nursery of the puddle of goo. Usually you hear of heat and the right mix of elements that were responsible for life to come about.
Just the thought of having a living cell form out of nonliving matter is beyond me. For something so dramatic to be beleived without being observed is quite a leap of faith in my opinion. However, assuming this did happen, you would have to sustain the life of that cell that had miraculously sprung to life in a world of nonliving organisms. It would have to grow without a food source and then reproduce itself in a hostile environment and sustain that reproduction without a food source. Then for some unknown reason millions of years latter life forms decide to no longer reproduce in an asexual manner. They then choose to split into male and female counterparts. The whole male and female thing is hard to fathome. Not only would a new species have to form, which has never been observed, but the asexual organisms would then have to have reproduced simultaniously the new male and female species for this to happen.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I already explained this - causality is only a factor within the universe. You cannot open a packing case with the crowbar inside it, neither can you unpack a 'cause' for the universe where time doesn't exist.

Sorry, it is the only arguement that is logical to me. Nothing else works.

Originally posted by whodey
Has anyone really thought about the implications of abiogenesis in terms of common sense? We supposidly came from the sea, but formed first in a puddle of goo and then at some time decided to go for a swim. You never hear the arguement that life started in the sea. The sea is a violent and hostile place and not suitable to the imagined protective nursery o ...[text shortened]... then have to have reproduced simultaniously the new male and female species for this to happen.

Life formed in either the open sea, near to the coast, or in an intertidal rock pool.

You really should read a good book on the subject - your arguments smack of limited comprehension of the subject.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Life formed in either the open sea, near to the coast, or in an intertidal rock pool.

You really should read a good book on the subject - your arguments smack of limited comprehension of the subject.

You know this?
It didn't form in space and settle here?
It didn't form inland by a lake?
It didn't form in a cloud?
It didn't form deep inside the earth?
It didn't ____?
I guess the only thing you know for sure is that God had nothing
to do with it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know this?
It didn't form in space and settle here?
It didn't form inland by a lake?
It didn't form in a cloud?
It didn't form deep inside the earth?
It didn't ____?
I guess the only thing you know for sure is that God had nothing
to do with it?
Kelly

available evidence Kelly, available evidence.

We know the cellular constituents in all cells contain salts - the same salts in the sea, at (normally) roughly the same proportions and concentrations as found in the sea. We know life had to form underwater - the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere means no ozone, hence, even though solar output was 25% lower, too much incident UV for life to form on land - even DNA wouldn't be stable enough to resist that bombardment. 1-2cm depth of water would be adequate to absorb the UV though. The deep oceans would be cold - water has it's maximum density at ~4C, so that's the temperature it'd be at at 4KM down (and about 8 tons per cubic inch in pressure) - too cold for much chemistry to happen, especially the chemistry in biological systems which, in poikilothermic (cold blooded) organisms works best at ~20C. We still need some energy input, so it has to be in shallow water, and wave action is useful in the (spontaneous) formation of vesicles, which would later become cell membranes. Likewise, rocky surfaces are good for the adhesion of small molecules, which would act as a natural concentrating mechanism, increasing the number of potential combinations of molecules that would be produced, some of which may have been able to self-replicate, very much in the way we can induce DNA to do nowadays, using thermal cycling in PCR.

As I say Kelly, this is the most likely scenario for an abiogenic event.