No. Because the universe follows the laws of science we are able to observe that there are scientific rules governing it. There's no "seem" or "should" about it.
... Rules and governing.... The universe moves with out the rule book pal. I have to say I'm a realist for that fact. So lets just chill out for a second. And O'yes I'm back if the word had not gotten to your ears yet. Abiogenesis I'm really interested in the facts in this Mysticism. Few key points I would like you to connect for me. -Mitochondria DNA -Law of Bio-genesis(not violating this law btw) -Creation of both a cell and DNA combined together to create life from nothing. Now, I'm a fair sport I'll listen to every word you type but I would like to suggest not falling prey to your own conflicts of interests or bias's opinions of what happens. Facts only... Hear say can see you at the door. O' and I'll come back with a maybe later on.
*Ahem*, are you RabidZergling? I think not. It's not that I'm trying to ignore you, it's that I'm trying to discuss this with a particular person who may have slightly different views than two people. I don't like the tag-team. It's unfair, unclear, and irritating.
So you believe the universe doesn't follow thermodynamic laws, Newton's laws of motion or scientific laws in general? So basically you want to know the theory behind Abiogenisis? Your grammar is a bit awkward, so i'm not sure exactly what you mean to say. When you refer to Abiogenesis as Mysticism though, that's misleading, as Abiogenesis is a scientific area, and not in the least Mystic.
What he said. There's not much room for varying responses when you are discussing fact. The universe exists, we have created a set of laws to predict it. The universe doesn't follow our laws - our laws are molded off the universe.
So, RabidZergling, the universe has laws that are perfectly justified by reality. Does that make them laws then? No, it's not your turn to talk, Scarecrow.
First off, Laws in science are actually the way we explain how the world works not the other way around. It is illogical to say that the world spins due to gravity. Or that because the object in motion says in motion till it is hit by another object. See the way in which science tries to explain the world with Laws are to give an individual an brief ... yes brief, example how an exact item acts under certain given situation. Gravity is not at all a force we can measure on a small scale. This is a bit posing because of the first composure of the idea was because apples fell from a tree. The understanding of laws is not at all facts or at all true in a realistic viewing of the universe. These laws are bent and destoried in many cases we can create... thus even making it so that objects not in motion randomly start moving as well vise versa. Or can a object Maybe never stop moving? (something i tossed in at the end ... did you catch it) I'll explain how abiogenesis is mystic only on the fact it is trying to find an event so buried in sand of time it is Mystic to pose as an event occurring. So moving from a crime scene so for gone we have some magical events that had to occur that violate a given law already. Life has to come from other living Cells. That Cell Theory in which i refer to is just a theory, so that one we can toss out but lets draw closer to subject opinion of how life was made. Since our ecosystem is based of of plants. Lets pose a few serous questions that should if any explain even how a much more unlikely event life came from a random event. So, we have 4 massive things coming together to form a cell. Mitochondria, which are thought to be a small living thing in side a cell. DNA, which is most likely in its prokyarate form. The cytoplasm in the cell which is going to give the cell ATP(energy) and last but not least all the correct code which will make future life as we know it. See the question here is actually how the theory of evolution is applied another side of the spectrum. In the luck of the world creating life is so magical that we gave it an even extra rare chance of occurring. Lets pose a second question... maybe this time we should also pose the question what is the likely hood of that said single cell Surviving?
The likelihood of a single cell surviving could be some insanely small percentage, but in the face of colossal amounts of time, those odds mean nothing. There could have been millions of "almost there" Abiogenesis reactions, millions of "false starts", but it doesn't mean it's not impossible.
Thank you for taking my point and ramming it into the ground. maybe you should listen to yourself and not jump on other people's posts. No. Stalagmites forming is something we have observed. Abiogenisis is not. That makes them two completely different things. As well as non-living substances forming non-living substances is much different from non-living substances forming living substances. Actually I think you're the one confused. Since nature in its broadest sense is everything in the universe, and God is in this universe, that means God is in nature and is natural. So anything he does is natural. Kind of like how there is no difference between man-made global warming and natural global warming. And it's really too bad for you as you would have a very valid point if we were talking about something like the Laws of Motion. But we're not, we're talking about the Theory of Abiogenisis.
The laws of the universe are estimates, given by scientists, that correctly predict interactions between matter as often as possible. These estimates, like gravity, have known faults, but are still used because they work 100% of the time on an everyday scale. We are only living because we define ourselves that way. The universe doesn't have special rules for living things. We are just like anything else; collections of particles and energy that interact together. We are just home to some finely tuned interactions.
Abiogenisis has best been explained by the Miller Urey experiments and Lynn Margulis theorys. They are the closest to creating life from nothing that humans have done in the last 50 years and with some success. Millers experiments formed basic protines and RNA. "primeval soup". And Lynn's theory of how some bacteria or protiens could have formed a mutual bond and formed cells which eventualy became more complex forms of life.Large orgamisms make all types of relation ships whether it be mutualism ,commensalism,or even Parasitism . It would not be that hard to concept early organisms or cells making bonds to survive or evolve. Mutations also could have happened due to some unique occurance which could have also caused protiens and bacteria to change. I think Symbiosis had a part of how life came about and I don't believe any divine power influenced this.
Both replies taken from my blog. You would both do well to read it. Abiogensis Explained The early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules. Organic molecules are not exclusive to earth, they are found commonly in space (comets etc.). The pre-biotic earth would have contained many simple fatty acids, which under a range of pH they spontaneously form stable vesicles. These vesicles were permeable to small organic molecules, which means complex proteins were not required to acquire these molecules. When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in a solution, it will incorporate them. Eating and growth are driven solely by thermodynamics. When a vesicle grows it adopts a tubular branched shape, which is easily divided by mechanical forces (waves, rocks, etc.). During mechanical division none of the contents of the vesicle are lost. The pre-biotic earth contained hundreds of types of different nucleotides (not just DNA and RNA). Recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of spontaneous polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA. Monomers will base pair with a single stranded template and self ligate. They can also polymerize in a solution, and spontaneously form new templates, or extend existing templates. No special sequences are required, it is powered by chemistry. We now have vesicles that can grow and divide, and nucleotide polymers that can self replicate, all on their own. How does it become life? Fatty acid vesicles are permeable to nucleotide monomers, not polymers. Once spontaneous polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer is trapped within. Floating through the ocean the vesicles will encounter convection currents such as those set up by underwater volcanoes or vents. The high temperature will separate the polymer strands and increase the membrane's permeability to monomers. Once it cools, spontaneous polymerization can occur and the process repeats. The polymer, due to surrounding ions, will increase the osmotic pressure within the vesicle, stretching its membrane. A vesicle with more polymer, through simple thermodynamics, will steal lipids from a vesicle with less polymer. This is the origin of competition, they eat each other. A vesicle that contains a polymer that can replicate faster, will grow and divide faster, eventually dominating the population. Review: Monomers diffuse into a fatty acid vesicle. Monomer spontaneously polymerize and copy any template. Heat separates strands, increases membrane permeability to monomers. Polymer backbones attract ions, increasing osmotic pressure. Pressure on the membrane drives its growth at the expense of nearby vesicles containing less polymer. Vesicles grow tubular structures. Mechanical forces cause vesicles to divide. Daughter vesicles inherit polymers from the parent vesicle. Polymer sequences that replicate faster will dominate the population, thus beginning evolution. From that point on, the vesicles would mutate, and any beneficial mutation would result in information added to the genome. Soon they would form secondary structures that show some enzymatic activity. Just like RNA, early nucleotides could both store information and operate as enzymes. Each polymer enzyme would, enhance replication, use high energy molecules in the environment to recharge monomers, synthesize lipids from other molecules in the environment, and modify it's lipids so it could not escape the membrane. There you have it a simple two component system that spontaneously forms in the pre-biotic environment. It can eat, grow, replicate, and evolve, simply through thermodynamic, mechanical, and electrical forces. No ridiculous probability, just organic chemistry. Why do people refuse to learn anything? Does anyone know how to learn from others mistakes or at least look up their points? As if this is even a point to begin with. What is a scientific theory? What is a fact? Are they related? How is scientific evidence scientific? Science, in the broadest sense, is a search for truth. Truth, in this instance, being naturalistic fact not moral, philosophical, etc. The word evidence is a frequently used word in the English language but what does it mean? The word, as given by the dictionary, means to prove or disprove something with basis. That doesn't do much good for us because we know that science can never be certain about anything so words like proof and disproof are meaningless. A way of looking at evidence in science is as a collection of facts. A fact being, items fall when lifted up. An example of this fact being used as evidence would be as a collection of facts, such as: when a ball is tossed in the air, it falls to earth [1] and accelerates at 9.8 m/s^2 [2] before hitting the ground with a force of Fg=m*g (g= 9.8 m/s^2). So after we've determined what evidence is (a collection of facts) we can discover what a theory is. And a theory, in science, basically means its a collection of evidences. So, in truth, theories are collections of collections of facts. They supercede fact. A fact states a general phenomena, evidence explains how it interacts with other facts and theories explain how it all happens. It is the umbrella that ties knowledge together, not useless conjecture or a suffix at the end of a subject to enforce the belief that it is just a wild guess. Please, let's stop calling theories "just theories." It's annoying and it destroys your credibility. Please.
My point wasn't that it was inferior because it was "just a theory", my point was that it is not a scientific law and therefore is susceptible to questioning. As in it's not set in stone so don't act like it is. I'm not talking about facts versus theories, I'm talking about laws versus theories. Especially in this case since there is a law of science in direct opposition to your proposed theory.
Laws are susceptible to questioning. Theories are stronger than laws. Theories carry explanatory power, laws are just statements of general phenomena.\ And no, the Law of bio-genesis does not contradict abiogenesis. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
I disagree that there are only natural truths. There are moral and philosophical ones that people abide by. I contend that certain elements of human nature do not change. Natural truths, like gravity for instance, can't be broken like moral standards, such as murder, theft, etc. But, we maintain that they are objectionably 'bad', aside from exceptions. I've always had the sense that intentionally hurting someone is bad. No one had to tell me it was, but we've all been lectured after playground fights. Anyways, I'm simply saying that although moral standards and the pursuits of philosophy aren't concrete like natural laws, they never can be, they carry their own weight of veracity. As for laws and theories, that's bullshit. Theories are not stronger than laws. Laws are the foundation of all theories and the physical constants of our universe. That said, however, theories carry greater repercussions to everyday life when discussing politics, philosophy, and even in this thread.
Rusty! Good to see you're alive buddy. I'm sorry but you're incorrect in your assumptions. "Science, in the broadest sense, is a search for truth. Truth, in this instance, being naturalistic fact not moral, philosophical, etc." Please note I said in that instance. "Laws are the foundation of all theories and the physical constants of our universe." Okay, show me why that is. Give me an example. Something. Obviously I'm not just going to accept the point and concede if you haven't made an argument
yea, go try and get someone to question the Law of Gravity. See how many takers you get. Then compare how many you got to the number questioning the Theory of Evolution.
Okay...that really doesn't pertain to anything. The amount of people who question something is not dependent on the strength of the argument or whether or not something is a law. Theories don't become laws once they're proven. That's why we have a law and a theory of gravity, because they do separate jobs. Laws are less subject to questioning because they're simpler. For instance, the law of gravity states, what goes up must come down; whereas the theory of gravity illustrates why, how and gives details on the fall. But just because something is "less subject to questioning" does not mean it is therefore stronger, more valid, and supersedes theory. Now people would question laws if it contradicted their beliefs, such as evolution does but most do not because they're just common sense observations of everyday life. The Law of Biogenesis (under the definition most commonly misused) is in direct conflict with god YET people use it as a form of argument FOR god. Why? Because even though something is simpler, easier to understand and more straight forward they will agree with it if they believe it may destroy the credibility of the other side (somehow validating their own). People are stranger, stupid, and silly little creatures. So easy to deceive and fool. It just takes the proper conditioning. Lucky for us, it's everywhere.
The reason why there are less people questioning the theory of gravity than there are people questioning the theory of evolution is because the theory of gravity doesn't completely shake the foundation of their religion.