ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[Nathon Detroit]

I'd much rather admit when I don't have an answer than make one up.

So... you don't have an answer but you are sure that I am wrong and you are right. :doh:

 

[Vision in Verse]

Do you believe that protobionts actually existed?
They are merely a theory, you realize that right?

I think life came into existence from non-life and protobionts help explain how. There is no reason they couldn't form.

And if protobionts existed at some point in the past why don't they exist today? Why don't we find protobionts in jars of peanut butter or on dead animal carcases? And if science can't make a living cell don't you think they could at least create a protobiont???

The environment of the earth has changed. We are not looking for protobionts because there is so much dead organic matter around.

Remind me again who has the greater faith?

I have no idea. Since I consider myself sensible I would say neither faith has any physical weight.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Can God do something illogical -- like know the future without violating free will? Can He be irrational? Consider that if your answer is "no", then you have classified inductive reasoning as weak logic. And in doing so you have classified the inductive position that life only comes from life as weak logic. In the very act of supernatural creation, the inductive pattern is violated. If inductive reasoning were sound logic, then God could not violate this logic even supernaturally (if you answered "no" to the above question, you've already conceded that God cannot do something illogical or irrational). It is absolutely necessary that you view inductive reasoning as weak logic, because inductively we would assume that life began naturally -- as we assume all natural phenomenon have a natural cause. My point to you was that inductive patterns are not absolute patterns, and unless we've considered every possible pattern and every possible combination, they are simply inductive trends. We have only ever observed life with genomes from life with genomes, but you have just told me that there is a case in which this inductive pattern is invalid. It doesn't matter whether the phenomenon that violates the inductive conclusion is supernatural, or magical, or unsupportable, or supportable, or faith-based, or not faith-based, or empirical, because in any case violation of the inductive principle demonstrates that it is inherently weak.

Comparing the physical laws of nature to logic and reason is like comparing apples to orange spray paint.

There is no comparison.

 

[Johnny]

And if protobionts existed at some point in the past why don't they exist today? Why don't we find protobionts in jars of peanut butter or on dead animal carcases? And if science can't make a living cell don't you think they could at least create a protobiont???

Where oh where have all the protobionts gone? Oh where oh where have they gone???

Remind me again who has the greater faith?

Right here.

"Oparin has reported another self-growing system in which the coacervate droplets are made from histone and RNA. The enzyme RNA polymerase is introduced into the droplets, and ADP is added to the surrounding medium as “food.” When the ADP enters the droplet, it encounters the RNA polymerase and is polymerized into polyadenylic acid. The energy for polymerization is contained within the ADP itself. The new polyadenylic acid adds to the total RNA in the coacervates. The droplets grow with time and break up into daughter droplets.
Such systems eventually wind down because the supply of enzyme molecules for polymerizing ADP does not increase with the total mass of the coacervate droplets. As we saw earlier, however, nucleic acids can be polymerized nonenzymatically with small, energy-rich coupling-agent molecules such as cyanogen. It should be possible to construct coacervate droplets from protein and RNA, to provide them with ADP and the appropriate coupling reagents, and to see them grow and multiply without limit as long as their “nutrients” continue to be supplied."

 

[Vision in Verse]

Right here.

"Oparin has reported another self-growing system in which the coacervate droplets are made from histone and RNA. The enzyme RNA polymerase is introduced into the droplets, and ADP is added to the surrounding medium as “food.” When the ADP enters the droplet, it encounters the RNA polymerase and is polymerized into polyadenylic acid. The energy for polymerization is contained within the ADP itself. The new polyadenylic acid adds to the total RNA in the coacervates. The droplets grow with time and break up into daughter droplets.
Such systems eventually wind down because the supply of enzyme molecules for polymerizing ADP does not increase with the total mass of the coacervate droplets. As we saw earlier, however, nucleic acids can be polymerized nonenzymatically with small, energy-rich coupling-agent molecules such as cyanogen. It should be possible to construct coacervate droplets from protein and RNA, to provide them with ADP and the appropriate coupling reagents, and to see them grow and multiply without limit as long as their “nutrients” continue to be supplied."

Thank you very much.

 

[Woodbine]

I wonder if I can get the authors of this article to change the title of it.

They could change it from.....

The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)
.............

You realise the context and results of this experiment have no bearing at all on whether abiogenesis is possible? Let's look at the apparatus in the experiment....one lump of meat....one glass jar. And it was found that in the week or so the meat was left standing no life emerged. Leaving meat in a jar for a few days is hardly a worthwhile experiment to determine whether life could emerge from the conditions present on Earth billions of years ago.

This is not to take anything away from Pasteur, it was a brilliant experiment, but as for using this experiment with regards to the question of abiogenesis.....it's just a weaker form of the peanut butter argument (if possible).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think life came into existence from non-life and protobionts help explain how. There is no reason they couldn't form.

If there is no reason they couldn't form why can't we form them? Or something like them?

The environment of the earth has changed. We are not looking for protobionts because there is so much dead organic matter around.

Ahhh... I see.... and organic material is somehow harmful to your imaginary protobionts?

This is really starting to sound like some excellent science fiction!

I wonder if Keanu Reeves will be in the movie?

Protobionts - The Final Conquest!

 

[Johnny]

Comparing the physical laws of nature to logic and reason is like comparing apples to orange spray paint.

There is no comparison.

That's funny, because I didn't compare any physical laws of nature to logic and reason.

If God cannot violate logic BUT God does violate the inductive principle, then you have admitted that inductive reasoning is inherently weak, and have thus destroyed your own position (seeing as how your position is an inductive one).

I think that's all that needs to be said.

 

[fool]

So.... you DO believe it is possible that life MIGHT form in a jar of peanut butter?

Some one once told me that water boiled at room temperature.
I said it was impossible.
A few moments later as I sat there watching water boil at room temperature a few things jelled in my mind.
This is illustrated by the "let's say you know half of everything. What's in the other half that you don't know?" axiom.
So yes, it might be possible for life to form in a jar of peanut butter.

Rep for the first person who can tell the class how my 8th grade science teacher boiled water at room temperature.

 

[SUTG]

So... you don't have an answer but you are sure that I am wrong and you are right. :doh:

To what? The question of whether life can arise from non-life?

I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You realise the context and results of this experiment have no bearing at all on whether abiogenesis is possible? Let's look at the apparatus in the experiment....one lump of meat....one glass jar. And it was found that in the week or so the meat was left standing no life emerged. Leaving meat in a jar for a few days is hardly a worthwhile experiment to determine whether life could emerge from the conditions present on Earth billions of years ago.

This is not to take anything away from Pasteur, it was a brilliant experiment, but as for using this experiment with regards to the question of abiogenesis.....it's just a weaker form of the peanut butter argument (if possible).

So... you are saying you believe in Spontaneous Generation???

 

[Nathon Detroit]

To what? The question of whether life can arise from non-life?

I don't know, and neither do you.

I will put my money on tested science thank you very much.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Some one once told me that water boiled at room temperature.
I said it was impossible.
A few moments later as I sat there watching water boil at room temperature a few things jelled in my mind.
This is illustrated by the "let's say you know half of everything. What's in the other half that you don't know?" axiom.
So yes, it might be possible for life to form in a jar of peanut butter.

Thank you for conceding that you have the greater faith.

 

[Vision in Verse]

If there is no reason they couldn't form why can't we form them? Or something like them?Ahhh... I see.... and organic material is somehow harmful to your imaginary protobionts?

Johnny's post addesses these questions. Back... track...

I wonder if Keanu Reeves will be in the movie?

Protobionts - The Final Conquest!

Your sarcasm seems like a defense mechanism, but I remind you I am not attacking you, I am defending myself. And if your sarcasm is supposed to be some kind of psychological tactic... it's really, not... working.

 

[Woodbine]

So... you are saying you believe in Spontaneous Generation???

No.

I'm agnostic on the issue. If someone says it's possible I want to see the evidence that leads them to that conclusion....similarly if someone says it's impossible I want to see the evidence that leads them to that conclusion, also.

 

[fool]

Thank you for conceding that you have the greater faith.

You're not gonna take a stab at the bonus quiz question?

 

[zoo22]

Some one once told me that water boiled at room temperature.
I said it was impossible.
A few moments later as I sat there watching water boil at room temperature a few things jelled in my mind.
This is illustrated by the "let's say you know half of everything. What's in the other half that you don't know?" axiom.
So yes, it might be possible for life to form in a jar of peanut butter.

Rep for the first person who can tell the class how my 8th grade science teacher boiled water at room temperature.

Reduced pressure/Vacuum chamber.

(or having the room be 212 degrees F ;-) )

 

[Johnny]

Rep for the first person who can tell the class how my 8th grade science teacher boiled water at room temperature.

Reduced air pressure. We boiled compounds in organic chemistry at room temperature all the time Oddly enough, the temperature of the compound also drops.

Edit: ZOO!!!!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No.

I'm agnostic on the issue. If someone says it's possible I want to see the evidence that leads them to that conclusion....similarly if someone says it's impossible I want to see the evidence that leads them to that conclusion, also.

Science says it's impossible.

So why are you still agnostic on the issue? Do you have something against science?

 

[Johnny]

Knight, do you agree that inductive reasoning is weak logic?

Edit: I should restate -- an inductive argument is a weak argument.