ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here

[kame]

Could life spontaneously arise from a jar of peanut butter, or given the current conditions on earth?

With the prevalence of free oxygen in the atmosphere and oceans, probably not. Do the people on these forms need a lesson in time scale? It is estimated that it took at least 1 billion years for abiogenesis to occur on this planet. We've been tackling the problem in a controlled scientific manner for maybe the past 50. Simply because we haven't duplicated the feat of creating simple replicators in a controlled lab setting yet in no way invalidates the idea that basic chemistry and physics can, in a purely blind coincidental manner, assemble molecules that can make copies of itself.

Like a lot of you theists like to say, an absence of evidence is not proof of absence. And given the strides we have made in the past 50 years concerning abiogenesis , the day where you have to eat your words (crust removed optional) may not be as far away as you would hope.

 

[Jukia]

With the prevalence of free oxygen in the atmosphere, probably not. Do the people on these forms need a lesson in time scale? It is estimated that it took at least 1 billion years for abiogenesis to occur on this planet. We've been tackling the problem in a controlled scientific manner for maybe the past 50. Simply because we haven't duplicated the feat of creating simple replicators in a controlled lab setting yet in no way invalidates the idea that basic chemistry and physics can, in a purely blind coincidental manner, assemble molecules that can make copies of itself.

Like a lot of you theists like to say, an absence of evidence is not proof of absence. And given the strides we have made in the past 50 years concerning abiogenesis , the day where you have to eat your words (crust removed optional) may not be as far away as you would hope.

Kame: You forget that many of the posters on TOL believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, created by God in 6 literal days, there was a world wide flood, Noah did take all the animals on the ark (including dinosaurs) etc. Find that brick wall, it will feel so much better when you stop banging your head against it!!

 

[kame]

It is not to the YEC's I'm speaking, it is to the people still holding onto their basic human curiosity that I wish to address.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ah, I see Knight won't play unless he can win. All fine and well with me, I just wanted people to see you directly dodge the questions instead of just ignoring me.

I just like to jump to the chase.

That being said, I do not believe in "spontaneous generation", the concept that Pasteur was interested in. That's because "spontaneous generation" and "abiogenesis" are very different ideas -- even despite the fact that you have continuously confused the two throughout this thread. Take a look at wikipedia or search the internet. There are a variety of resources available to help you understand the difference.

As far as I can tell and certainly in regard to this discussion abiogenisis and spontaneous generation seem to be synonymous.

Even the first definition in Wiki uses Spontaneous Generation as the fundamental way to explain abiogenisis. "Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation" source

So, in what way are these two things so different? I am willing to learn, please explain it to me.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No, because I know too much about Biology.

Yet you do in fact believe it did occur... at least once right?

Do you believe that sheep can only come from sheep? After all, as creationists are so fond of pointing out, that is all anyone has ever seen.

Life coming from non-living matter is entirely different than types of life coming from other types or kinds of life.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Proof is a logical concept, not a scientific one.

Ahhh... interesting... you may want to "hip" Johnny to that fact.

 

[kame]

It's pretty simple, really. Spontaneous Generation postulates that complex living organisms can appear from non-living matter (rotting meat, milk, grains, etc.). Abiogenesis is the idea that compounds that fit our working definition for life (the ability to make copies of itself) can arise out of non living compounds using nothing but chemistry.

 

[SUTG]

Yet you do in fact believe it did occur... at least once right?

More likely than not. Either that or it was created.

Life coming from non-living matter is entirely different than types of life coming from other types or kinds of life.

You didn't answer my question. Is it true that sheep can only come from sheep? It is a yes/no question.

 

[fool]

Howdy.
Glad ya kame.
How'd ya find us?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It's pretty simple, really. Spontaneous Generation postulates that complex living organisms can appear from non-living matter (rotting meat, milk, grains, etc.). Abiogenesis is the idea that compounds that fit our working definition for life (the ability to make copies of itself) can arise out of non living compounds using nothing but chemistry.

Sounds reasonable to me. Clearly they are forms of one another.

What do you make of the following statements.....?

"Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation"

"The term abiogenesis simply means getting life from non-life and is used both for spontaneous generation and for chemical evolution."

"a·bi·o·gen·e·sis - the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."​

Agree with them? Disagree with them??? :think:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

More likely than not. Either that or it was created.

So..... if you believe it is "more likely than not" why to you unequivocally reject it now? For instance when I asked if you believed in spontaneous generation you said.... "No, because I know too much about Biology." Yet now you say it is "more likely than not". :dizzy:

Have you met yourself lately? You might want to debrief yourself on what you are saying before you actually say it.

You didn't answer my question. Is it true that sheep can only come from sheep? It is a yes/no question.

I am not a geneticist but I am pretty sure you can't make a sheep from a pile of soy beans.

 

[SUTG]

So..... if you believe it is "more likely than not" why to you unequivocally reject it now? For instance when I asked if you believed in spontaneous generation you said.... "No, because I know too much about Biology." Yet now you say it is "more likely than not". :dizzy:

The phrases "abiogenesis", "spontaneous generation", and "theory of evolution" have different meanings. Read some of the wiki pages you linked to.

I am not a geneticist but I am pretty sure you can't make a sheep from a pile of soy beans.

So...is that a "NO" answer? Why are you avoiding the question? True or False: Sheep can only come from sheep.

 

[Johnny]

Ahhh... interesting... you may want to "hip" Johnny to that fact.

I'm well aware -- not sure what indicated that I wasn't.

As far as I can tell and certainly in regard to this discussion abiogenisis and spontaneous generation seem to be synonymous.

Spontaneous generation refers to the idea that microorganisms or life forms spontaneously appear or are created by decaying organic substances. When you ask if someone believes in spontaneous generation, and when you say that scientist have discredited spontaneous generation, this is what you refer to.

Even the first definition in Wiki uses Spontaneous Generation as the fundamental way to explain abiogenisis. "Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation" source

So, in what way are these two things so different? I am willing to learn, please explain it to me.

Classic in this context means "historically held" -- they are not the same thing as modern notions of abiogenesis.. Continuing the sentence you quoted, we see that "classic notions" of abiogenesis "held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat." This is not the modern notion of abiogenesis.

Spontaneous generation held that organic life spontaneously appeared on a short timescale given only decaying organic matter as a substrate. Modern ideas about abiogenesis involve long time periods (hundreds of millions of years, or a billion+), no decaying organic matter, and only the right combination of the right substrates. These are not believed to have spontaneously organized into complete life forms, but rather they are believed to have developed from primitive replicating organic molecules.

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are two completely different ideas that take place on vastly different timescales and in vastly different ways.

 

[Jukia]

Is there one particular post that led to aharvey's banning? Just curious. thanks.

 

[Cracked]

I like peanut butter and bannana sandwiches - though they did help kill Elvis.

That important piece of information said, I have to do my best to trust in God and His word (including Genesis), even when folks put up strong arguments against it.

 

[fool]

You didn't answer my question. Is it true that sheep can only come from sheep? It is a yes/no question.

According to Bob Enyart's recent Real Science Friday episode it has been determined that the Biblical "kind" is roughly equivilent to "family" in the traditional taxononomic system.

A sheep is a bovid; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid

A bovid is any of almost 140 species of cloven-hoofed mammals belonging to the family Bovidae. The family is widespread, being native to all continents except South America, Australia and Antarctica, and diverse: members include buffalo, bison, antelopes, gazelles, and both wild and domesticated cattle, sheep, goats, and water buffalo.

So a sheep can come from a waterbuffalo.

 

[SUTG]

Is there one particular post that led to aharvey's banning?

I think it's because he was too knowledgeable.

 

[kame]

Sounds reasonable to me. Clearly they are forms of one another.

What do you make of the following statements.....?

"Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation"

"The term abiogenesis simply means getting life from non-life and is used both for spontaneous generation and for chemical evolution."

"a·bi·o·gen·e·sis - the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation."​

Agree with them? Disagree with them??? :think:

They are not as related as you think. Spontaneous Generation relied on living matter that was decaying, whereas abiogenesis does not.

To address the statements you are quoting, I would first like to ask for citations on where they come from so that I can consider the source and insure you are not quoting them out of context, but I'll give you my thoughts beforehand.

The first is a definition, and the word 'classical' jumps out at me right away. What exactly are "classical notions" of abiogenesis, maggots from rotting meat? Without more information I cannot comment further, let alone agree or disagree.

The second is an oversimplification. Sure both theories describe the same thing, but the mechanisms are completely different, as I stated in a previous post. I will not repeat myself here.

The third is the one I really want to citation on. As I suspect it is either not addressing modern understanding of abiogenesis, or is a deliberate attempt to lump them both together in an effort to discredit current research.

Like others have said, please take the time to read the wiki entry on abiogenesis, it would probably help to clarify some of the misconceptions you have about it.

 

[fool]

Is there one particular post that led to aharvey's banning? Just curious. thanks.

The last one he made.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The phrases "abiogenesis", "spontaneous generation", and "theory of evolution" have different meanings. Read some of the wiki pages you linked to.

I did... and I also quoted the dictionary definition of the abiogenesis.