PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Science Debates
     Prebiotic soup recipé
       Where did it come from?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can't find anywhere online that explanes wher the prebiotic stuff came from. Worryingly there was a website that said it never did happen and it wasn't even a creationist site. Help!
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 3:55 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Worryingly there was a website that said it never did happen and it wasn't even a creationist site. Help!


Perhaps it was a Raelian site, or some other 'Natural Creation' idea that says other life brought life to Earth. The human mind's pretty imaginative; people have come up with countless ways to explain life on Earth.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:50 AM on April 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah.  Some even believe evolution...


(sorry, couldn't resist)





-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:52 AM on April 8, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry EntwickelnCollin but it was an evolutionist site. It doesn't pay to make assumptions. I've looked for the site again but can't find it. I did come across a text book passage that claimed the soup was made by rain washing minerals from rocks into the ocean but I'm far from convinced. That would mean that we are each descended from a rock! Dr Robert Weisenberg (another evolutionist teaching professor) admits that abiogenesis life from non-life is a non-starter but refuses to accept any explanation, merely claiming it to be irrelevent to the development of life.

EMyers, once upon a time I would have been offended by your posting but I'm finding fewer and fewer reasons to believe in evolution. The fact is that DNA mutations are at best mixed blessings (the sickle-cell / malaria immunity thing for one and just about the only one) and the observed ones that in any way alter the workings of a limb make it useless or stop it from growing. I find the idea of a random change in an ordered sequence making another ordered sequence odd in the least. Some will always believe in evolution but count me out of it. Looking back the only reasons I ever believed in it to start with was a religious one. I'm embarrassed to admit that my thinking has been 'there is no God therefore everything evolved therefore there is no God. The other reason was peer pressure. Not science in either case.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 10:40 AM on April 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry EntwickelnCollin but it was an evolutionist site.


That doesn’t even make sense. You said it was neither Abiogenesis nor Creation. It can’t be Theistic Evolution—the belief that a God started life and let Evolution keep it going—because that’s a form of Creation too.

It doesn't pay to make assumptions.


What assumptions did I make?

I've looked for the site again but can't find it.


Forgive me for doubting the whole story.

I did come across a text book passage that claimed the soup was made by rain washing minerals from rocks into the ocean but I'm far from convinced. That would mean that we are each descended from a rock!


The Bible essentially says the same thing: God breathed life into dust. What’s your point?

Dr Robert Weisenberg (another evolutionist teaching professor) admits that abiogenesis life from non-life is a non-starter but refuses to accept any explanation, merely claiming it to be irrelevent to the development of life.


You need to realize that your opponents in this debate acknowledge they could be wrong. Pulling dissenting opinions off the internet doesn’t do much for your argument, because both sides already know such opinions exist.

EMyers, once upon a time I would have been offended by your posting but I'm finding fewer and fewer reasons to believe in evolution. The fact is that DNA mutations are at best mixed blessings (the sickle-cell / malaria immunity thing for one and just about the only one)


I’m afraid you’re misconceiving DNA mutations. Not all of them have “pros and cons.” Sickle-Cell Anemia is not the “best” kind of genetic mutation we’ve found. Not by any means. On another note, why do you keep parroting the same exact stuff Gomez says? Either you’re both getting your information from the same site, or you’re not even willing to do your own research and just re-stating what Gomez said a week ago.

and the observed ones that in any way alter the workings of a limb make it useless or stop it from growing.


Uh, not true. I know a girl with webbed toes. Surprisingly enough, she can move all the joints in her feet and legs. How about the countless basketball players you’ve seen on TV? Genetic mutations make their arms longer than the average length of a human being, and believe it or not, their arms work just fine.

I find the idea of a random change in an ordered sequence making another ordered sequence odd in the least. Some will always believe in evolution but count me out of it. Looking back the only reasons I ever believed in it to start with was a religious one. I'm embarrassed to admit that my thinking has been 'there is no God therefore everything evolved therefore there is no God.


That’s likely the problem right there. I really despise the close-minded thought that Evolution and God are mutually exclusive. Contrary to popular American belief, there are far more ideas in this world than “God vs. Mac Evelli.”

The other reason was peer pressure. Not science in either case.


Though it’s obvious you haven’t done much research on this topic up until now, it’s good that you can recognize the open space in your former belief, and having no scientific justification to accept a scientific explanation is more than enough reason to stop accepting it. On your willingness to drop a position because the evidence would at least appear to be lacking, I applaud you.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:01 PM on April 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That doesn’t even make sense. You said it was neither Abiogenesis nor Creation. It can’t be Theistic Evolution—the belief that a God started life and let Evolution keep it going—because that’s a form of Creation too.


I'm confused on one point here.  I've been told, time and time again on this site, that Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis.  Therefore evolution can fit into a creationist viewpoint (although not a biblical one).  Creationism has to do with abiogenesis.  Creationism tells us how it all started.  It is possible to be both creationist and evolutionist just as it is possible to be one without the other.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:21 PM on April 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm confused on one point here.  I've been told, time and time again on this site, that Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis.  Therefore evolution can fit into a creationist viewpoint (although not a biblical one).  Creationism has to do with abiogenesis.  Creationism tells us how it all started.  It is possible to be both creationist and evolutionist just as it is possible to be one without the other.


I know, but he's saying the site was of an evolutionist, not a creationist, saying that abiogenesis did not occur. Theistic Evolution is still a form of Creation--it just isn't Young-Earth Creation.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:50 PM on April 8, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm delighted that you mention that Adam was made from dust. If you were to get the quote right, you would have said 'the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' Did you know that the elements that make up our bodies are found in the ground? So we have one side saying an almighty creator made a living being and the other says that a set of molecules appeared all by itself in a broth of chemicals with an unknown origin and went through many random changes including polymerization until it had come to life all by itself. Neither have been winessed happening so it comes down to personal faith.  Was the first human a creation from a creator God or was he a mutant fish?

The web toes: I said ' alter the workings of a limb'. The mutation is in the skin between the toes not in the joints or muscles so of course the rest will work well.

Do you know any better mutations than the sickle-cell one? You forgot to mention it.

What assumptions did you make? That I am a schoolchild. I left school a long time ago and am 2/3 of the way through a college degree course. You assumed as well that the soup refuting site was from somebody who believed that life came from space. You also said 'it’s obvious you haven’t done much research on this topic up until now'. I've done lots of research, that's why i'm doubting the whole theory through lack of proof. Lack of evidence is proof of lack of evidence in this case and not lack of looking. Exhibit A: a museum had a row of skeletons set out in order of size to show how elephants evolved. The first one was an elephant so was the last one and all the others in between. So elephants come from elephants. Further digging found that some believe the elephant to have come from the hyrax which is rather like a badger! You know what makes them think that hyaxes are elephants' nearest kin? Small tusk-like teeth in the hyrax jaw and a small likeness in the feet. Not convincing because pig's teeth are like ours but we aren't told that we are nearer to pigs than anything else. Remember the embarrassment of the archaeologist who thought they had found a man-ancestor (Nebraska Man) based on one lone tooth only to find that it actually came from a pig? I know that not everyone believed them but it still shows the folly of jumping to conclusions. The daftest bit of the hyrax to elephant idea is that the hyrax (hyracathorium) was once used as the horse's ancestor but was dropped fifty years ago when it was realised they were nothing alike. Look at http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html as a typical example. Take this quote 'It is believed that 50-60 million years ago, mammals approximately the size of current day pigs, were the roots from which the proboscideans evolved from. Interestingly, based on both morphological and biochemical evidence, it is agreed that the manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes are the closest living relatives of the today's elephants. It is incredible to believe given the vastly different sizes, external appearance and the fact that they occupy completely different habitats.' They start with 'it is believed' (not proven' and end with 'It is incredible to believe.' It most certainly is! I'll carry on searching but I keep finding more of the same.

Why do you parrot the same claims about sickle-cell as every other evolutionist when talking about beneficial mutations? As we get told the same thing as each other we have the same thing to refute.

If evolutionists are willing to accept they are wrong I must have missed them saying that. I have instead seen them change meanings of words to make themselves look right including changing the definitions of fact, evolution and [proof] to show that evolution is proven fact. I'm sure you would never do such a thing.

Where did I say 'it was neither Abiogenesis nor Creation'?

Back to the original question, where did the soup come from?



(Edited by hatfield 4/9/2006 at 05:26 AM).
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 02:43 AM on April 9, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I shall address your entire response in time, Hatfield. I've had quite the Sunday, and I've got big homework load tomorrow, but rest assured, I'm not ignoring a post you put a lot of time into.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:06 PM on April 9, 2006 | IP
hatfield

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shall we save time and agree to disagree now?
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 5:22 PM on April 15, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I suppose so. To be honest, I wrote about half the response on Sunday, but then forgot about it since then. A lot of what I had written so far was rebuttal of your "accusations of assumption," but the passion's long gone, along with the will to point out the irony of "how you incorrectly assumed I was making these assumptions."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:08 PM on April 15, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think we can all at least agree on the fact that the building blocks of life were present on this earth before life itself formed.  the many different chemicals in the universe had collected here due to the natural elements of the earth as well as the many many comets and asteroids from deep space that impacted on our planet in the first billion years or so.  earth is very close to the sun, comparitively, and so the natural gravity well causes a very large amount of debris (especially since there was so much still moving around from the formation of the solar system) to move to and from the sun in comet-like orbits.  all these rocks collect chemicals from the space around the solar system and some happen to fall in the orbit of the earth, crashing into it and leaving their minerals here.

natural reactions begin to take place on earth; lava flows, tectonic compression and divergence, harsh and unending rains of various chemicals including an abundance of water.  it is the most dramatic chemical test lab that has ever existed on this planet.  it is as if all the many eclectic types of elements in and around the solar system were all jumbled together and mixed around, seperated, remixed in different combinations, and then continually repeated.  since the earth is close to the sun, relatively small, and now shielded from large debris by the bigger planets forming farther out, it creates a suitable habitat for the formation of complex chemical chains.  it is also because the temperature is at a level at which water is liquid.  

the immense amount of water left by the thousands--if not millions--of comets condensed into rain after a billion years of intense internal heat.  and it rained for millions of years.  the land was filled with water and the sky was filled with volatile gases.  but what we would call volatile gases are really some of the perfect array of chemicals for triggering and catering to reactions that formed the first proteins--at least here on earth.  there is the slight possibility that some protein[s] encased in a meteorite made it all the way to earth intact, but it is very slim and improbable.  what is more likely is that these proteins first developed in the turbulent and chemically vibrant seas of our primodial world.  from the start of this chemical chain reaction, it was inevitable that RNA strands and DNA and ultimately simple cells would form.  the natural interaction of these chemicalls in the immense ocean and the almost constant shock of lightning was the cause of the first organics.


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 10:21 AM on April 20, 2006 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[: a museum had a row of skeletons set out in order of size to show how elephants evolved. The first one was an elephant so was the last one and all the others in between. So elephants come from elephants. Further digging found that some believe the elephant to have come from the hyrax which is rather like a badger! You know what makes them think that hyaxes are elephants' nearest kin? Small tusk-like teeth in the hyrax jaw and a small likeness in the feet. Not convincing because pig's teeth are like ours but we aren't told that we are nearer to pigs than anything else. Remember the embarrassment of the archaeologist who thought they had found a man-ancestor (Nebraska Man) based on one lone tooth only to find that it actually came from a pig? I know that not everyone believed them but it still shows the folly of jumping to conclusions.

You are making a lot of misstatements here!

Nebraska man: no "archaeologist" involved. Do you mean paleontologist?

A rancher found a worn, broken tooth in the badlands.  

It proved to be from an extinct peccary, not a pig. So why do you call it a pig?

The tentative identification of it as hominid was disputed at the time, and was soon discarded.  

That is a profound difference between religion and science.  No matter how ridiculous a story may be if its in the bible it must be true.  

You speak of jumping to conclusions.  You jumped to the conclusion that the display only means elephants are all descended form other elephants?  

There are fossils of earlier elephant like animals, if they'd included those would it have helped?

The badger and hyrax are not a bit alike, any more than a coyote is like an antelope.  And NOBODY says elephants descended from the hyrax.  That is your invention. tsk tks.  Inventing things isnt a good way to make a point.

There are a lot more anatomical relationships between the hyrax and elephant than you listed, and the nature of the relationship is nothing like the incidental similarity of human and pig teeth.

You are either deliberately distorting things or you just dont really know what you are talking about.

BTW the sickle cell mutation does involve a benefit.
50% of the population with it are immune to malaria.






 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:56 PM on December 12, 2008 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I remember seeing on TV some time ago a documentry or something about the conditions that created the primoordial soup... but then they said such conditions would also produce a lot of tar (which is detrumental to the development of life)

anyone else heard this? or should I just forget about it?

 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 04:35 AM on September 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from NIF at 01:35 AM on September 14, 2010 :
I remember seeing on TV some time ago a documentry or something about the conditions that created the primoordial soup... but then they said such conditions would also produce a lot of tar (which is detrumental to the development of life)

anyone else heard this? or should I just forget about it?



There is no reason the entire surface of the earth would need to be conducive to the start of life.


Between the sheets




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 06:22 AM on September 14, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.