|
2 registered members (NorbertSz, 1 invisible),
3,964
guests, and 4
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79549
07/07/06 17:40
07/07/06 17:40
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I don't think this claim is dubious, because they weren't even talking about a replicating system yet. It appears to me that this is another form of my racemic mixture argument. Even if you sort amino acids by left handedness, they tend to settle back into a racemic mixture.
Certainly, it would be quite a miracle if amino acids and sugars sorted themselves into a homochiral relationship like we see in biological organisms. That's what I believe they are talking about.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79551
07/08/06 04:23
07/08/06 04:23
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Yes it is nonosense. Whnever someone invokes the laws of thermodynamics, like entropy, in a discussion of evolution, it immediately becomes nonsense. This is a very old argument, and one that has been deatl with many times; entropy just doesnt apply to this.
When evolutionists invoke stories about snowflakes and crystals to explain why thermodynamics isn't a problem, they are either lying, or they don't know what they're talking about.
I don't know how thermodynamics would effect mutations, but it certainly plays a part in abiogenesis. And, Matt, I'd love to hear your explanation of why thermodynamics doesn't apply to abiogenesis.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79552
07/11/06 00:55
07/11/06 00:55
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,127
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,127
Frankfurt
|
I've meanwhile found the article that the "Chemical Origin" website uses as a proof for most of it's claims. If someone is interested, it's here: http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/orgel.htmlThe article is not a scientific publication, but just a brief introduction into the history, different theories, experiments, progress and setbacks reconstructing the origin of life in the early earth atmosphere. Its author is a critical supporter of the RNA world theory. Quote:
Whether RNA arose spontaneously or replaced some earlier genetic system, its development was probably the watershed event in the development of life. It very likely led to the synthesis of proteins, the formation of DNA and the emergence of a cell that became life's last common ancestor. The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future. Nevertheless, as chemists, biochemists and molecular biologists cooperate on ever more ingenious experiments, they are sure to fill in many missing parts of the puzzle.
None of the claims on the "Chemical Origin" website are contained in the article. I haven't looked into the other links yet, but got the impression that also the rest of the website is 100% bunk.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79553
07/13/06 01:08
07/13/06 01:08
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
You've shown that a scientist will believe something on faith, to begin with. What does that have to do with their claim? Furthermore, Scientific American is a popular evolution-based scientific publication in America. I'm actually subscribed to it. So if that article truly is from Scientific American, then you've just proved that they did get it from a reputable source. http://www.salk.edu/faculty/faculty/details.php?id=39So what's wrong with using this guy as a reference? He sounds like an eminent expert in the field. Quote:
Before the mid-17th century, most people believed that God had created humankind and other higher organisms and that insects, frogs and other small creatures could arise spontaneously in mud or decaying matter. For the next two centuries, those ideas were subjected to increasingly severe criticism, and in the mid-19th century two important scientific advances set the stage for modern discussions of the origin of life.
In one advance Louis Pasteur discredited the concept of spontaneous generation.
I do like that they lump the spontaneous appearance of life in with creationism, and then say both are criticized, before showing how a creationist disproved the idea that life arose randomly as they describe. Evolutionists are funny like that.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/13/06 01:10.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79555
07/13/06 05:51
07/13/06 05:51
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I know a bit about him. He has an interesting life-story. So what have I said, that you think is wrong?
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79556
07/13/06 08:09
07/13/06 08:09
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,127
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 28,127
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
So what's wrong with using this guy as a reference? He sounds like an eminent expert in the field.
Leslie Orgel _is_ an expert on abiogenesis.
What's wrong using the article as reference? Nothing, unless you use it to claim some nonsense that isn't contained in the article at all. On creationist websites you're finding this all the time. This is not only deceiving some readers - which was probably the intention - but also dishonest towards the author.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79557
07/13/06 08:47
07/13/06 08:47
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Yes i have consistenly found in creationist websites and literature a tendency to take real science and pervert the meaning, draw incorrect conclusions, and even fabricate it outright. While I doubt Irish Farmer is being intentionally deceptive, I think he is doing the same things when he calls Pasteur a "creationist" who disproved spontaneous generation.
While Pasteur may or may not have been a Christian, and he did disprove spontaneous generation and developed germ theory, I dont see what the purpose of Irish's observation is, other than to imply--without any good reason--that he did this to somehow "prove" creationism. This is a classic example of using a fact or a scientist to falsely lend weight to a conclusion--a conclusion that probably would have offended the scientist in question.
Can you honestly tell me that Pasteur was a Creationist? Or that, given the science done in the last 150 years, he would still be one now? The idea is completely absurd. The only poeple who are creationists these days are insane, ignorant, or just stubborn and stupid.
While many scientists may believe in a god, I doubt you can find many who believe in Biblical Creation. It seems that people who actually study these things for a living have very different beliefs than people like Irish, who are basically laymen with no science background, and probably little or no higher education. Why would that be?
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79558
07/13/06 22:47
07/13/06 22:47
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
What's wrong using the article as reference? Nothing, unless you use it to claim some nonsense that isn't contained in the article at all.
Did you actually look up the magazine? Because the link you posted wasn't even from the scientific american website, which might contain a complete copy of the article. That said, if it is a complete copy of the article, then I didn't notice anything about the claim. But I just did a quick text search for 'homochirality', or 'chiral'. So I don't know.
The only way to find out is to subscribe to SA digital which gives access to the archives back into 1993, but that's about $40. So I don't think I'll be doing that just to find out, especially when I already have the paper subscription. I'll just e-mail the webmaster of the site. 
Anyway, I didn't read the whole article (did you?), but I tried doing the search with amino, or sugar, or anything else that might tip me off to something on homochirality and got nada. Of course, they could have referred to it in a way that wouldn't use any of the 'hot' words I chose to search with.
edit: I did e-mail them, but I went directly to one of the staffers, so I should receive a response within a week I'd assume.
Now, on to Matt's undecipherably irrelevant ramblings. 
Quote:
I think he is doing the same things when he calls Pasteur a "creationist" who disproved spontaneous generation.
He didn't disprove abiogenesis, but he disproved the notion that wholly formed animals would just pop up out of nowhere. He didn't do it in the name of creationism, there wasn't that big of a debate back then. He probably just did it in the name of common sense.
Quote:
While Pasteur may or may not have been a Christian
If he wasn't a christian, he went way out of his way to make it look like he was. He was the guy I quoted who said science brought man closer to God.
Quote:
I dont see what the purpose of Irish's observation is, other than to imply--without any good reason--that he did this to somehow "prove" creationism.
That's because just about everything you say and think is incorrect. That wasn't the point. The point was to criticize the author of the article for lumping creationism in with spontaneous generation of life, when pasteur himself was critical of darwin whom he thought formulated his thoughts without enough experimental proof. He used someone who thought we were created, in the same breath as saying creationism is outdated. It just seemed weird to me. No reason to dwell on it.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/13/06 22:57.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
