- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
30 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf life were as simple as you make it to be and the difference between life and non-life completely arbitary, then it would have been no problem to create life in the lab.
Who knows? It would have been very simple. The difference between life and non-life is completely arbitrary.
Now you really sound like someone who doesn't know they are talking about.
30 Mar 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerWe already have chemicals in the lab which will self replicate.
If life were as simple as you make it to be and the difference between life and non-life completely arbitary, then it would have been no problem to create life in the lab.
Now you really sound like someone who doesn't know they are talking about.
Probably life could be replicted in the lab. Since it's a game of chance though, it may take a long time for us to allow it to evolve in the lab and a very large substrate pool to do it, same as first time.
" 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."
Feel free to tell me what is "special" about any one of those conditions.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
30 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo how exactly do self replicating molecules go about producing life?
We already have chemicals in the lab which will self replicate.
Probably life could be replicted in the lab. Since it's a game of chance though, it may take a long time for us to allow it to evolve in the lab and a very large substrate pool to do it, same as first time.
" 1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain ...[text shortened]... of growth."
Feel free to tell me what is "special" about any one of those conditions.
And what exactly is so simple about a living cell?
30 Mar 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo how exactly do self replicating molecules go about producing life?
So how exactly do self replicating molecules go about producing life?
And what exactly is so simple about a living cell?
What? Like DNA?
And what exactly is so simple about a living cell?
Nothing. Nothing nowadays anyway. However, abiogenesis posits a steady progression from simple self replicating non-living entities, to more complex self-replicating entities, called life.
30 Mar 07
Originally posted by buffalobillI guess we can't know for sure, but given the nature of our experiences it's easier to assume that the physical world around us actually exists than to do otherwise.
You raise the question of what is reality. I lose an arm but I have feelings of an itchy arm. Artificial stimulation of the brain creates sensations of sight, sound, taste or even memories.
Some people see ghosts, others have different spiritual experiences. For us, these are real. But they can't be seen by others. In this sense, how do we truly know W ...[text shortened]... ink, I think I feel, I think Descartes existed, but is this real? Can I even trust my memories?
30 Mar 07
Originally posted by dj2becker
The evidence does not exclusively prove evolution. In fact, all living organism use the same DNA base pairs, and therefore it is not surprising at all to find similarities in the DNA structures for the perspective of the Creationist.
I didn't say it exclusively proved it. In fact, I said proof of this
sort is generally not available. I said that it provided strong of evidence
to allow us to conclude it.
Evolution doesn't exclude the so-called 'Tinker Model' of intelligent
design. Scott, himself, wouldn't deny it (though he would opine that
it doesn't require it either). It does exclude the notion of a
literal reading of Genesis.
Similarity ('homology'😉 is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (Creation).
No one is talking about absolute proof, DJBecker. We are talking about
what the similarity in morphology suggests. Just like you got your
blue eyes from your dad (or whatever), we got out postures from
proto-humans, or our warm-bloodedness from our pre-mammalian
ancestor and so forth.
Do you personally have a Creator? No, you do not. You were the
incidental relating of your dad's sperm and your mother's egg. Your
father shot out something like 250 million sperm. So, you are
one in 250 million.
Evolution would have required all 100,000-plus nucleotides to have shown up at exactly the right time in exactly the right way- all right handed- to form a functioning DNA molecule. In other words just to get all 100,000-plus correctly orientated nucleotides together in the first place, would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row.
What do you think the odds are of this if I flipped precisely 100,000
times? What do you think the odds are of this if I flipped 100 trillion
times? What do you think the odds of this if I flipped 1 billion times
a second for 6 billion years?
Nemesio
30 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerOf course, reading Nems post, I thought I should point out that nucleotides will spontaneously form chains. This happened millions of times per minute, all over the planet, for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Only 1 of those chains ever had to work.
How many base pairs did the first bacteria supposedly have? Not less than 10,000 is it?
30 Mar 07
Originally posted by josephwI don't think you can prove 100% that God exists no more then you can prove 100% that evolution exists. Remember now that science is base on facts. Fact that can be proven. If it not proven 100% then it a theory. Science can get close to solving evolution, but not 100%. Even though we can get close to solving evolution it still a theory (through the eyes of science), but it a strong theory. The same for the bible. We can’t prove it 100%, so through the eyes of science it a theory.
evolution?
No doubt this has been debated before, but I was wondering if someone could tell me why you believe evolution is true.
I'm tired of trying to prove God exists, so I thought this might be refreshing.
Also, my scientific background is limited so please keep it in layman's terms.
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by crazyfoxThe bible could never be called a scientific theory. It has no basis in empirical observation, and is based upon unparsimonious assumptions.
I don't think you can prove 100% that God exists no more then you can prove 100% that evolution exists. Remember now that science is base on facts. Fact that can be proven. If it not proven 100% then it a theory. Science can get close to solving evolution, but not 100%. Even though we can get close to solving evolution it still a theory (through the eyes ...[text shortened]... apable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by crazyfoxYour second paragraph reads like a definition you nabbed from somewhere and makes no sense when read with the first.
I don't think you can prove 100% that God exists no more then you can prove 100% that evolution exists. Remember now that science is base on facts. Fact that can be proven. If it not proven 100% then it a theory. Science can get close to solving evolution, but not 100%. Even though we can get close to solving evolution it still a theory (through the eyes ...[text shortened]... apable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
You're wrong about theories. A scientific theory is an accepted explanation for something - it's not about whether it's proven or not.
Evolution is a theory because it is an accepted scientific explanation for a particular phenomena - the existence of many different species. Creation is not a theory because it's not a scientifically accepted explanation.
And by the way, science doesn't produce 100% correct or 100% true answers - it produces contingent answers - that is, better answers. We can never be sure that any scientific explanation is 100% true or correct - that's what falsifiability is.
For absolute certainty, you'll need to find that somewhere else.
31 Mar 07
Originally posted by amannionI thought that "facts" were what science seeks to find. What goes up must come down!
Your second paragraph reads like a definition you nabbed from somewhere and makes no sense when read with the first.
You're wrong about theories. A scientific theory is an accepted explanation for something - it's not about whether it's proven or not.
Evolution is a theory because it is an accepted scientific explanation for a particular phenomena - the e ...[text shortened]... what falsifiability is.
For absolute certainty, you'll need to find that somewhere else.