Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

These things don't show anything about how the apparent design in cells arose....they only show that RNA can replicate under unnatural circumstances (this is pretty obvious even before the Spiegelman Monster) and that amino acids (a bunch of chemicals) can form under certain conditions (also pretty obvious)....in other words it doesn't show anything at all about how the DNA formed, where the molecular machines came from, where the DNA came from, etc.....

Its equivalent to me saying the Great Pyramids are a natural formation because the material its made of arises naturally, and also mountains arise naturally....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A "point" of logic and a "fallacy" of logic are not the same thing.

No scientist says that. Scientists don't talk - or think - like that. You do.

Obvious, are they, now that they have been demonstrated ? And so will the other necessary and possoible steps appear, if and when they are figured out. And the area of ignorance available for your God to have acted in will keep shrinking - maybe never to zero, as it has for lightning strike, but quite a bit from its current playground.

Before anyone knew how the Great Pyramids were built, did their construction require a deity?

Before anyone knew how snowflakes came to have their amazing designs, just like designed tile patterns or designed lacework, did each snowflake require a deity's involvement ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i disagree.
the proof is that people here must continually discern between evolution and abiogenesis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no apparent design in cells, quite the opposite. Cells with a nucleus are a cooperative affair between two formerly separate organisms. Once the principles behind the formation of replicators are known, natural selection takes over, and it leads to the tree of life.

RNA is a kind of molecular machine. In fact all catalysts are a kind of molecular machine. DNA probably did not encode the first life, since it is so complex. Something simpler started it, and DNA was a later innovation. It has been suggested that the first replicators might have been minerals or crystals.

 

One problem is that Darwinian evolution is also the major proposed theory of abiogenesis.

It doesn't just work on DNA, after all. It's a fundamental theory of evolution of anything that meets its criteria of applicability. You can use it to design electrical circuits. It's obviously a possibility, and the evidence points more to it than to any other proposal yet.

 

Teaching it and learning it are quite different things.

 

i never heard of abiogenesis until i made my appearance on this board.
edit
and apparently a whole slew of people hasn't heard about it either.
end edit.

i was never told that evolution and the origins of life were two different things in high school.

 

Fancy that, how deceptive of them, what a surprise!

 

that's my primary beef about this whole deal. and i want to know why this isn't being taught in our high schools.
as a matter of fact it should be taught that science has no evidence that supports intelligent life from the elements.

 

Well, I never payed much attention in high school, I forget how bad science education can be in the US. It's not true that there is no evidence of abiogenesis, there is some quite compelling evidence, it just isn't conclusive yet. Intelligence is an emergent property of life. It can be traced backwards to it's origins. At some point, intelligence became a survival advantage.

 

of course! it only happens in the US

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

what high school did you go to spidergoat? why don't you look it up and see if this stuff was taught there.

 

Middletown High School, Middletown, Maryland. I might still have my notes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middletown_High_School,_Middletown,_Maryland

 

I went to Montgomery Blair High School, Silver Spring, MD, and I remember learning a little bit about abiogenesis, but not much at all. Just about Miller's experiments...most of the things we learned in biology was about evolution and genetics....

 

Yes there is, there's lots of apparent design in cells....as for DNA, I meant genetic material, the evidence you gave gives no idea how the RNA or DNA or any genetic material arose....and how the molecular machines that read, interpret, and translate that information arose....which is why an intelligent cause makes sense...

The evidence you showed just shows that RNA can replicate (so what?) it doesn't tell us where the RNA originated or anything.....

 

It shows that RNA can form spontaneously in the presence of a catylist. This is one piece of the puzzle, just to contradict the notion that abiogenesis is merely speculation. This RNA can also adapt, showing one of the attributes of life.

An intelligent cause only defers the explanation to how did that intelligent thing come about.

 

But that would be false. There is lots of evidence that all life - including the intelligent beings and the others on this forum - emerged from "the elements".

For starters, it did emerge - it wasn't always around.

For another, it is made up of "the elements" even today, and emerges from them (with necessary catalysis, of course) routinely.

And for a third, there are various ways in which such emergence can happen, and several of them would have had their necessary conditions met by the world of "the elements". First and most likely among them we have the patterns we have come to call Darwinian Evolution.

And so forth.

There is none, AFAIK. Not a single complex of irreducible complexity, not a single complex unrelatable to past and other complexes, nothing that looks designed, exists in any cell. And everything in every cell grew - it all "spontaneously" assembled without any intervening supernatural beings.

 

Really whats your evidence for this? Show me RNA and the molecular machines spontaneously assembling in labs then I'll shut up....otherwise you've got nothing but blind atheistic faith...

As for no design, you do know that you can reprogram bacteria right by changing the genetic information right? Being able to reprogram something like a sotware program is no sign of design to you? Molecular machines reading, interpreting, translating, and carrying out instructions based on genetic information (a four character ciphertext code) is not design to you?

No it doesn't, it shows that using already pre-existing RNA combined with salts, and replicating enzymes that RNA and replicate...woah that proves absolutely nothing.......

 

Happens every day. It's called "growth and reproduction"

If you have seen something in a cell that looks designed, to you, lets hear about it. It all self-assembles, it's all grown rather than made, the means and capability of past and further evolutionary change are right there in front of everyone's eyes, etc.

It isn't like a software program - false and misleading metaphor. And I can reprogram all kinds of computer stuff no one designed - like the little machines in the game "Life". If things can live in a computer that no one designed to be there, why not in the big world? It's far more complex - - -.

 

All talk and no evidence....I already talked about all the design features in cells...

Show me how its grown? There's no evidence that its grown...none at all...

Yes it is, its very similar to a computer, according to bioengineers (are you a bioengineer?):
"At the genetic level, bacteria use many of the same tricks as computer circuitry. In a typical genetic circuit, one gene produces a protein that turns a corresponding gene on or off, much the way a computer inverter turns a 1 into a 0 and vice versa. Switched on, a gene might produce a chemical signal that directs an organism to seek out food; switched off, it helps the organism conserve energy. By plugging in proteins and genes, Weiss can activate or deactivate chemical signals on command"

This is very very similar to a computer....in fact biologists know that bacteria are biological nanocomputers...

Source - http://www.princeton.edu/~rweiss/in-the-news/Popular Science June 2004.htm

 

You haven't mentioned any, except by assertion. You need an argument,you know, to separate the "designed" elements from the "undesigend". They all just grow in the cell.

You're telling me cells don't grow and reproduce?

But that's not what you said. You said the genetic info was like a software program. Not at all the same thing. If you want to use computers as metaphors, for thinking about living beings such as bacteria, you have to be very careful: the hardware/software split does not exist, for starters.

Furthermore, it didn't settle the argument, as I also pointed out. Being able to make changes and "reprogram" something is no evidence of design in that thing - why would it be ? I can reprogram a snowflake mid-growth, for a different pattern, does that make every snowflake designed? Even on computers there are things happening that were not designed in - have you ever played with the game "Life"?