Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How did the first cell arouse from chemical

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:52:37 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How life evolved: 10 steps to the first cells.
https://www.newscientist.com...

If life did evolve in alkaline hydrothermal vents, it might have happened something like this:

1.
Water percolated down into newly formed rock under the seafloor, where it reacted with minerals such as olivine, producing a warm alkaline fluid rich in hydrogen, sulphides and other chemicals " a process called serpentinisation.

This hot fluid welled up at alkaline hydrothermal vents like those at the Lost City, a vent system discovered near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 2000.

2.
Unlike today"s seas, the early ocean was acidic and rich in dissolved iron. When upwelling hydrothermal fluids reacted with this primordial seawater, they produced carbonate rocks riddled with tiny pores and a "foam" of iron-sulphur bubbles.

3.
Inside the iron-sulphur bubbles, hydrogen reacted with carbon dioxide, forming simple organic molecules such as methane, formate and acetate. Some of these reactions were catalysed by the iron-sulphur minerals. Similar iron-sulphur catalysts are still found at the heart of many proteins today.

4.
The electrochemical gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic seawater leads to the spontaneous formation of acetyl phosphate and pyrophospate, which act just like adenosine triphosphate or ATP, the chemical that powers living cells.

These molecules drove the formation of amino acids " the building blocks of proteins " and nucleotides, the building blocks for RNA and DNA.

5.
Thermal currents and diffusion within the vent pores concentrated larger molecules like nucleotides, driving the formation of RNA and DNA " and providing an ideal setting for their evolution into the world of DNA and proteins. Evolution got under way, with sets of molecules capable of producing more of themselves starting to dominate.

6.
Fatty molecules coated the iron-sulphur froth and spontaneously formed cell-like bubbles. Some of these bubbles would have enclosed self-replicating sets of molecules " the first organic cells. The earliest protocells may have been elusive entities, though, often dissolving and reforming as they circulated within the vents.

7.
The evolution of an enzyme called pyrophosphatase, which catalyses the production of pyrophosphate, allowed the protocells to extract more energy from the gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic ocean. This ancient enzyme is still found in many bacteria and archaea, the first two branches on the tree of life.

8.
Some protocells started using ATP as well as acetyl phosphate and pyrophosphate. The production of ATP using energy from the electrochemical gradient is perfected with the evolution of the enzyme ATP synthase, found within all life today.

9.
Protocells further from the main vent axis, where the natural electrochemical gradient is weaker, started to generate their own gradient by pumping protons across their membranes, using the energy released when carbon dioxide reacts with hydrogen.

This reaction yields only a small amount of energy, not enough to make ATP. By repeating the reaction and storing the energy in the form of an electrochemical gradient, however, protocells "saved up" enough energy for ATP production.

10.
Once protocells could generate their own electrochemical gradient, they were no longer tied to the vents. Cells left the vents on two separate occasions, with one exodus giving rise to bacteria and the other to archaea.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.
Skeptical1
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 9:47:03 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

We appreciate your attempts to keep the thread clean.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 9:48:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 9:47:03 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

We appreciate your attempts to keep the thread clean.

lol, I try.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 11:18:25 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

So what you are saying is the only thing known is what is unknown. It seems the only fact, is the nonfact that evolution is a fact. The fact that is too factual for us to fathom its faction, is because we are factually incapable to understand it. We cannot contemplate that it could be an intelligent design, because then the fact would be too easy to comprehend. And what we understand is nothing can be smarter than us. Except for the very first cell that has eluded all the brainpower of all the trillion kazillion heptagozillion cells trying to figure that out that one little stupid cell.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 12:40:40 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 11:18:25 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

So what you are saying is the only thing known is what is unknown. It seems the only fact, is the nonfact that evolution is a fact. The fact that is too factual for us to fathom its faction, is because we are factually incapable to understand it. We cannot contemplate that it could be an intelligent design, because then the fact would be too easy to comprehend. And what we understand is nothing can be smarter than us. Except for the very first cell that has eluded all the brainpower of all the trillion kazillion heptagozillion cells trying to figure that out that one little stupid cell.

Evolution =/= origin of first cell. Do try to stay on-topic.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 12:44:01 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:57:46 PM, janesix wrote:
This is the last time I do a joke thread.

Lol, sorry, Jane. I missed your intent.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 1:41:34 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

Most of us here aren't scientists and there are a whole bunch of theories of what might have happened but scientists don't have a proven explanation of what happened. If you aren't satisfied with that answer, then give me a detailed explanation of how God made the first life.

Here is a easy youtube video that explains the RNA world hypothesis which is a popular one for how life began:
https://www.youtube.com...
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 1:45:06 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 1:41:34 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

Most of us here aren't scientists and there are a whole bunch of theories of what might have happened but scientists don't have a proven explanation of what happened. If you aren't satisfied with that answer, then give me a detailed explanation of how God made the first life.

Here is a easy youtube video that explains the RNA world hypothesis which is a popular one for how life began:
https://www.youtube.com...

This was a joke thread.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 2:25:41 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 1:45:06 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/9/2016 1:41:34 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

Most of us here aren't scientists and there are a whole bunch of theories of what might have happened but scientists don't have a proven explanation of what happened. If you aren't satisfied with that answer, then give me a detailed explanation of how God made the first life.

Here is a easy youtube video that explains the RNA world hypothesis which is a popular one for how life began:
https://www.youtube.com...

This was a joke thread.

Well you have a very dry sense of humor.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 3:49:46 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 2:25:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/9/2016 1:45:06 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/9/2016 1:41:34 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

Most of us here aren't scientists and there are a whole bunch of theories of what might have happened but scientists don't have a proven explanation of what happened. If you aren't satisfied with that answer, then give me a detailed explanation of how God made the first life.

Here is a easy youtube video that explains the RNA world hypothesis which is a popular one for how life began:
https://www.youtube.com...

This was a joke thread.

Well you have a very dry sense of humor.

I know.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 5:01:16 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 3:49:46 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/9/2016 2:25:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/9/2016 1:45:06 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/9/2016 1:41:34 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

Most of us here aren't scientists and there are a whole bunch of theories of what might have happened but scientists don't have a proven explanation of what happened. If you aren't satisfied with that answer, then give me a detailed explanation of how God made the first life.

Here is a easy youtube video that explains the RNA world hypothesis which is a popular one for how life began:
https://www.youtube.com...

This was a joke thread.

Well you have a very dry sense of humor.

I know.
Surely someone picked up on the soap bit from another thread. I enjoyed it anyway.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 5:27:40 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 5:01:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:49:46 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/9/2016 2:25:41 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/9/2016 1:45:06 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/9/2016 1:41:34 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

Most of us here aren't scientists and there are a whole bunch of theories of what might have happened but scientists don't have a proven explanation of what happened. If you aren't satisfied with that answer, then give me a detailed explanation of how God made the first life.

Here is a easy youtube video that explains the RNA world hypothesis which is a popular one for how life began:
https://www.youtube.com...

This was a joke thread.

Well you have a very dry sense of humor.

I know.
Surely someone picked up on the soap bit from another thread. I enjoyed it anyway.

Thanks, bul I thought it was pretty funny myself. I have a bit of a mean sense of humor sometimes.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 10:33:38 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

there is no good explanation, just a series of potential happenings, sounds like evolution really....
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 11:57:56 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 10:33:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

there is no good explanation, just a series of potential happenings, sounds like evolution really....

Oh dear, even after it has been explained.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 4:32:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.

What was lacking before was evidence to support abiogenesis. The discovery of alkaline hydrothermal vents has advanced the RNA World and its role in abiogenesis.

Reposted here.

At 11/8/2016 8:52:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How life evolved: 10 steps to the first cells.
https://www.newscientist.com...

If life did evolve in alkaline hydrothermal vents, it might have happened something like this:

1.
Water percolated down into newly formed rock under the seafloor, where it reacted with minerals such as olivine, producing a warm alkaline fluid rich in hydrogen, sulphides and other chemicals " a process called serpentinisation.

This hot fluid welled up at alkaline hydrothermal vents like those at the Lost City, a vent system discovered near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 2000.

2.
Unlike today"s seas, the early ocean was acidic and rich in dissolved iron. When upwelling hydrothermal fluids reacted with this primordial seawater, they produced carbonate rocks riddled with tiny pores and a "foam" of iron-sulphur bubbles.

3.
Inside the iron-sulphur bubbles, hydrogen reacted with carbon dioxide, forming simple organic molecules such as methane, formate and acetate. Some of these reactions were catalysed by the iron-sulphur minerals. Similar iron-sulphur catalysts are still found at the heart of many proteins today.

4.
The electrochemical gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic seawater leads to the spontaneous formation of acetyl phosphate and pyrophospate, which act just like adenosine triphosphate or ATP, the chemical that powers living cells.

These molecules drove the formation of amino acids " the building blocks of proteins " and nucleotides, the building blocks for RNA and DNA.

5.
Thermal currents and diffusion within the vent pores concentrated larger molecules like nucleotides, driving the formation of RNA and DNA " and providing an ideal setting for their evolution into the world of DNA and proteins. Evolution got under way, with sets of molecules capable of producing more of themselves starting to dominate.

6.
Fatty molecules coated the iron-sulphur froth and spontaneously formed cell-like bubbles. Some of these bubbles would have enclosed self-replicating sets of molecules " the first organic cells. The earliest protocells may have been elusive entities, though, often dissolving and reforming as they circulated within the vents.

7.
The evolution of an enzyme called pyrophosphatase, which catalyses the production of pyrophosphate, allowed the protocells to extract more energy from the gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic ocean. This ancient enzyme is still found in many bacteria and archaea, the first two branches on the tree of life.

8.
Some protocells started using ATP as well as acetyl phosphate and pyrophosphate. The production of ATP using energy from the electrochemical gradient is perfected with the evolution of the enzyme ATP synthase, found within all life today.

9.
Protocells further from the main vent axis, where the natural electrochemical gradient is weaker, started to generate their own gradient by pumping protons across their membranes, using the energy released when carbon dioxide reacts with hydrogen.

This reaction yields only a small amount of energy, not enough to make ATP. By repeating the reaction and storing the energy in the form of an electrochemical gradient, however, protocells "saved up" enough energy for ATP production.

10.
Once protocells could generate their own electrochemical gradient, they were no longer tied to the vents. Cells left the vents on two separate occasions, with one exodus giving rise to bacteria and the other to archaea.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 4:46:43 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.

Nobody really knows for sure what he arguing about. I think he likes to argue for the sake of conflicts evolving inside himself. His head is like a volcano that's ready to explode. Keep a close watch on him. We might actually get to witness the beginnings of an actual biogenesis occurring.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 5:27:41 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 4:32:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.

What was lacking before was evidence to support abiogenesis. The discovery of alkaline hydrothermal vents has advanced the RNA World and its role in abiogenesis.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing there is an explanation better than abiogenesis for the origin of the first cell. I'm simply pointing out the explanation abiogenesis represents is very incomplete.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 5:33:11 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 4:46:43 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.

Nobody really knows for sure what he arguing about. I think he likes to argue for the sake of conflicts evolving inside himself. His head is like a volcano that's ready to explode. Keep a close watch on him. We might actually get to witness the beginnings of an actual biogenesis occurring.

RNA world and the new discoveries of early life forms around hydrothermal vents are not mere speculations. It offers an explanation how the first cells arose from chemicals. That started long before the brilliance of my Aura caught the attention of those who willfully remain stuck on stupid.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 5:37:46 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 5:27:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 4:32:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.

What was lacking before was evidence to support abiogenesis. The discovery of alkaline hydrothermal vents has advanced the RNA World and its role in abiogenesis.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing there is an explanation better than abiogenesis for the origin of the first cell. I'm simply pointing out the explanation abiogenesis represents is very incomplete.

You have poor comprehension. Read my post again.

What was lacking before was evidence to support abiogenesis. The discovery of alkaline hydrothermal vents has advanced the RNA World and its role in abiogenesis.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 5:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 5:33:11 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 4:46:43 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.

Nobody really knows for sure what he arguing about. I think he likes to argue for the sake of conflicts evolving inside himself. His head is like a volcano that's ready to explode. Keep a close watch on him. We might actually get to witness the beginnings of an actual biogenesis occurring.

RNA world and the new discoveries of early life forms around hydrothermal vents are not mere speculations. It offers an explanation how the first cells arose from chemicals. That started long before the brilliance of my Aura caught the attention of those who willfully remain stuck on stupid.

Try not to get too caught up in the chemistry of the mathematical biology of life. You might discover that it was all an imagination of the mind. Seriously. Think about it. You can only think about what is real in the life of an illusion.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 6:22:20 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 5:37:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 5:27:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 4:32:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:38:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/9/2016 3:16:58 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/9/2016 12:43:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 9:00:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:54:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:42:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:40:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:23:28 PM, janesix wrote:
soap?

How was the first cell birthed from chemical soap?

I want a detailed explanation.

How the first cell came to be is not known with certainty.

That's not good enough.

Sorry, I can only tell you what is known.

Maybe you should try to expand to what is known by others too to widen your scope.

I know what is accepted as a possibility, but to say we "know" this possibility is an actuality is overstating the evidence.

The alternative is living in ignorance. We accept science advanced our knowledge of the world we live in. Our existence now depends on it. If we are willing to trust science (medical) with our lives. We have to believe scientists know what life is having dealt with life at the cellular level.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing for scientific knowledge, then you should be acknowledging abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific 'fact'.

What was lacking before was evidence to support abiogenesis. The discovery of alkaline hydrothermal vents has advanced the RNA World and its role in abiogenesis.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing there is an explanation better than abiogenesis for the origin of the first cell. I'm simply pointing out the explanation abiogenesis represents is very incomplete.

You have poor comprehension. Read my post again.

What was lacking before was evidence to support abiogenesis. The discovery of alkaline hydrothermal vents has advanced the RNA World and its role in abiogenesis.

We have a disconnect here. What do my words mean to you and how does presenting evidence for abiogenesis contradict that meaning?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten