Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abiogenesis

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Abiogenesis is a theory incompatible with the evidence of the early earth. implausible as means to produce life or the precursors of life.

I have heard it said that a cell wall is not need for the precursors of life. Sswdwm stated this, "I agree with you, cell walls are significantly more complex than membranes as far as I understand, and needless for abiogenesis"

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing. I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

I also look forward to any one stating that abiogenesis on earth is a likely scenario. Given the option between intelligently designed and abiogeneis, I take the stand that life was fabricated by an intelligently governed process.

I'll present one of a multitude of issues with abiogenesis. The production of RNA with Right handed sugars and Left chiral Proteins. As well as the degradation of RNA in the Archeon Ocean which by the best estimates had alkaline conditions and pH.

Any other scenario's that exclude an intelligently governed process are welcomed to be debated on as well.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:35:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For those that are keen on the Miller-Urey experiment let me share with you a little scenario derived at by using Inferred Design.

Usually Miller-Urey experiment requires lightning, UV radiation and a cold trap. It has been pointed out by Intelligent Design proponents that the particulates of Amino Acids could not fall fast enough to the ocean or terrestrial land fast enough with out being destroyed by more lightning or UV radiation. Then once landed on the ocean would be broken down or float atop.

But if the amino acids made from the Miller-Urey reaction were the starting particulates to hail. The amino acid could be well protected and drop to the ocean. Given the density of a ferrous ocean could be like salt water. and of a cold enough temperature say -4 degrees. Cold currents could bring the amino acids to thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean.

Using Inferred Design a possible answer to the criticisms of an atmospheric production of Amino Acids is found.. How plausible this is to account for RNA generation is another facet of the argument.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:45:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
how does Inferred Design help come up with hail as a solution. Inferred Design is a top-down approach looking for environmental factors and implementations. So the question becomes, "What could happen in the upper atmosphere around lightning, diffuse UV radiation, cold enough to trap Amino Acids from other chemical processes and fall to earth quickly?" Though most scientist look towards meteorites, Hail satisfies the Inferred Design premises.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:53:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.

I welcome your contention. Do you have any sources to cite I would like to see them. I do not want to assume your information is from outdated material. As for the selectively permeable membrane, I agree. That's what I was saying with the example of the halobacteria membrane. In fact it appears to be a single layer lipid, but mostly protein membrane, and a coat of salt and pigment is used on the outside to filter UV radiation and aid in ATP synthesis and catalyst with the remaining photons. Cell membrane in a looser sense as being the lipid-protein shell containing the cellular machinery of a living cell.

But now I ask. How did this membrane come about and is it compatible with the other processes needed to produce say RNA or cytoplasm? I am still convinced it was by an intelligently governed process. Do you have anything to refute that claim? I would be interested in exploring the possibility.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:57:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:53:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.

I welcome your contention. Do you have any sources to cite I would like to see them. I do not want to assume your information is from outdated material. As for the selectively permeable membrane, I agree. That's what I was saying with the example of the halobacteria membrane. In fact it appears to be a single layer lipid, but mostly protein membrane, and a coat of salt and pigment is used on the outside to filter UV radiation and aid in ATP synthesis and catalyst with the remaining photons. Cell membrane in a looser sense as being the lipid-protein shell containing the cellular machinery of a living cell.

But now I ask. How did this membrane come about and is it compatible with the other processes needed to produce say RNA or cytoplasm? I am still convinced it was by an intelligently governed process. Do you have anything to refute that claim? I would be interested in exploring the possibility.

I am a theist, I believe that it was intelligently governed, but I believe that the designer designed the scientific laws as a program and let the creation follow said program.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:06:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:57:47 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:53:29 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.

I welcome your contention. Do you have any sources to cite I would like to see them. I do not want to assume your information is from outdated material. As for the selectively permeable membrane, I agree. That's what I was saying with the example of the halobacteria membrane. In fact it appears to be a single layer lipid, but mostly protein membrane, and a coat of salt and pigment is used on the outside to filter UV radiation and aid in ATP synthesis and catalyst with the remaining photons. Cell membrane in a looser sense as being the lipid-protein shell containing the cellular machinery of a living cell.

But now I ask. How did this membrane come about and is it compatible with the other processes needed to produce say RNA or cytoplasm? I am still convinced it was by an intelligently governed process. Do you have anything to refute that claim? I would be interested in exploring the possibility.

I am a theist, I believe that it was intelligently governed, but I believe that the designer designed the scientific laws as a program and let the creation follow said program.

I'm sure we have some disagreement in the evolutionary argument. But as for this thread I'm focusing on abiogenesis. I don't think a position for ID is unreasonable. So you may find the application of Inferred Design interesting. As used in other areas you may find it even valuable. I still welcome any critiques or objections. I hope to show a more than reasonable doubt for life being a creation. So please contend any and all things I say. And please investigate the links I presented in this debate:

http://www.debate.org...

They are:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu...
http://systemsbiology.case.edu...
http://ebookbrowsee.net...
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...
http://msb.embopress.org...
http://www.wiley.com...
http://arxiv.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:22:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.

Perhaps I should have named this post "Abiogenesis what a Crock of Crud." I thought more people would be willing to challenge my position on this matter.
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:51:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:22:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.

Perhaps I should have named this post "Abiogenesis what a Crock of Crud." I thought more people would be willing to challenge my position on this matter.

Your alternative hypothesis is goddidit? Lotsa evidence for that, I mean god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:59:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:51:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/7/2014 1:22:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.

Perhaps I should have named this post "Abiogenesis what a Crock of Crud." I thought more people would be willing to challenge my position on this matter.

Your alternative hypothesis is goddidit? Lotsa evidence for that, I mean god.

No. And thank you for presenting nothing of value to this discussion. I said an intelligently governed process did it. I made no identification to who, what, singular, community, spaghetti monster, pink unicorn, aliens, Boltzmann Brains (that's got some street cred and seems legit.), or anything like that.

I am asserting life on earth could not arise through abiogenesis here on earth. Thanks for your straw man, ill conceived conclusions.

I would really like some intellectually viable antithesis to my own Intelligently Created conclusion. When you have such evidence please present it. So the forum may examine it's merit. thank you
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:09:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:51:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/7/2014 1:22:57 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:39:07 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
If I can jump in here... About the cell wall, they didn't evolve for millennium after the beginning of life. The first cell had a selectively permeable membrane.

Perhaps I should have named this post "Abiogenesis what a Crock of Crud." I thought more people would be willing to challenge my position on this matter.

Your alternative hypothesis is goddidit? Lotsa evidence for that, I mean god.

I understand your assertion is there is no god?

This is something you can not prove and you are giving into a confirmation bias by ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

Having spoken to you before I suggest that if you insist on making such claims based on faith with out evidence, you should post them in the religious forum. This is the science forum. I also understand you lack the critical reasoning skills to support your claim even in a philosophical debate, so if I were you, I would not post there either.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:01:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Abiogenesis is a theory incompatible with the evidence of the early earth. implausible as means to produce life or the precursors of life.

I have heard it said that a cell wall is not need for the precursors of life. Sswdwm stated this, "I agree with you, cell walls are significantly more complex than membranes as far as I understand, and needless for abiogenesis"

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing. I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

I also look forward to any one stating that abiogenesis on earth is a likely scenario. Given the option between intelligently designed and abiogeneis, I take the stand that life was fabricated by an intelligently governed process.

I'll present one of a multitude of issues with abiogenesis. The production of RNA with Right handed sugars and Left chiral Proteins. As well as the degradation of RNA in the Archeon Ocean which by the best estimates had alkaline conditions and pH.

Any other scenario's that exclude an intelligently governed process are welcomed to be debated on as well.

I already pointed this out to you, halo bacteria are far more advanced organisms than the putative organism that abiogenesis would produce.

In any case I would happily debate you on the topic f abiogenesis at some point, however I have already just finished such a debate and lack the will to do another for now. Besides it's a little annoying defending a hypothesis of abiogenesis I don't think is true, as I have already mentioned to you before.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 5:07:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 5:01:01 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Abiogenesis is a theory incompatible with the evidence of the early earth. implausible as means to produce life or the precursors of life.

I have heard it said that a cell wall is not need for the precursors of life. Sswdwm stated this, "I agree with you, cell walls are significantly more complex than membranes as far as I understand, and needless for abiogenesis"

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing. I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

I also look forward to any one stating that abiogenesis on earth is a likely scenario. Given the option between intelligently designed and abiogeneis, I take the stand that life was fabricated by an intelligently governed process.

I'll present one of a multitude of issues with abiogenesis. The production of RNA with Right handed sugars and Left chiral Proteins. As well as the degradation of RNA in the Archeon Ocean which by the best estimates had alkaline conditions and pH.

Any other scenario's that exclude an intelligently governed process are welcomed to be debated on as well.

I already pointed this out to you, halo bacteria are far more advanced organisms than the putative organism that abiogenesis would produce.

In any case I would happily debate you on the topic f abiogenesis at some point, however I have already just finished such a debate and lack the will to do another for now. Besides it's a little annoying defending a hypothesis of abiogenesis I don't think is true, as I have already mentioned to you before.

It does not matter what you think this putative organism would be. The science would not support it's abiotic emergence.
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 11:51:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is alway easier to throw rocks at hypothesis and give reasoning why things can't happen especially for relatively young hypotheses around abiogenesis, many of which we know will ultimately be proven wrong because there are many different versions.

You are ultimately arguing ID is required because the random Formation of life is too improbable to ever have happened.

However, highly improbable things happen every day. See the guy who crashed an airplane in a house he previously owned? Ever hear of the Israel lottery a few years back when the exact same numbers were pulled within a couple months of each other.

The important thing now with abiogenesis it to encourage many different theories until they can be evaluated and whittled down to more probable senarios.

In other words it needs more time to better develop. Anyone who is arguing abiogenesis can't happen because it is insanely improbable just don't have a good grasp of probabiliy and how highly improbable things can and do happen.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:50:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 11:51:37 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is alway easier to throw rocks at hypothesis and give reasoning why things can't happen especially for relatively young hypotheses around abiogenesis, many of which we know will ultimately be proven wrong because there are many different versions.

You are ultimately arguing ID is required because the random Formation of life is too improbable to ever have happened.

However, highly improbable things happen every day. See the guy who crashed an airplane in a house he previously owned? Ever hear of the Israel lottery a few years back when the exact same numbers were pulled within a couple months of each other.

The important thing now with abiogenesis it to encourage many different theories until they can be evaluated and whittled down to more probable senarios.

In other words it needs more time to better develop. Anyone who is arguing abiogenesis can't happen because it is insanely improbable just don't have a good grasp of probabiliy and how highly improbable things can and do happen.

Thanks for addressing the probability angle. My case for an intelligently designed life, is that the very properties of life preclude it's natural emergence. As new evidence comes forward this conclusion may be over turned. I say using Inferred Design will help even answer those questions. Like the scenario for Amino Acid being inside hail, this is actually in support of a abiogenesis view.

But as we stand here to day, with what evidence we do have. It is obvious that the environment needed to create one small component of a living cell, is or can not be the same environment to produce another part, that bringing these parts together would have to be in a different environment, yet this would also be destructive to other components.

It is like asking what are the chances nature could make stonehenge, or create somewhere in the universe a lightbulb. I am not saying it is a matter of incredible odds. I am saying it is a matter of construction. Like an ice sculpture in the Sahara.

This may sound unreasonable or illogical to you. But it is already becoming wildly accepted that earth could not naturally create life. Which is why Pansmermia and other ideas of the ilk are becoming so popular, among molecular biologist. Because they realize they have to get the origins of life off earth and into a wider universe where they can make all kinds of unfounded, unverifiable, imaginings of life's natural creation.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:01:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:50:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:51:37 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is alway easier to throw rocks at hypothesis and give reasoning why things can't happen especially for relatively young hypotheses around abiogenesis, many of which we know will ultimately be proven wrong because there are many different versions.

You are ultimately arguing ID is required because the random Formation of life is too improbable to ever have happened.

However, highly improbable things happen every day. See the guy who crashed an airplane in a house he previously owned? Ever hear of the Israel lottery a few years back when the exact same numbers were pulled within a couple months of each other.

The important thing now with abiogenesis it to encourage many different theories until they can be evaluated and whittled down to more probable senarios.

In other words it needs more time to better develop. Anyone who is arguing abiogenesis can't happen because it is insanely improbable just don't have a good grasp of probabiliy and how highly improbable things can and do happen.

Thanks for addressing the probability angle. My case for an intelligently designed life, is that the very properties of life preclude it's natural emergence. As new evidence comes forward this conclusion may be over turned. I say using Inferred Design will help even answer those questions. Like the scenario for Amino Acid being inside hail, this is actually in support of a abiogenesis view.

But as we stand here to day, with what evidence we do have. It is obvious that the environment needed to create one small component of a living cell, is or can not be the same environment to produce another part, that bringing these parts together would have to be in a different environment, yet this would also be destructive to other components.

It is like asking what are the chances nature could make stonehenge, or create somewhere in the universe a lightbulb. I am not saying it is a matter of incredible odds. I am saying it is a matter of construction. Like an ice sculpture in the Sahara.

This may sound unreasonable or illogical to you. But it is already becoming wildly accepted that earth could not naturally create life. Which is why Pansmermia and other ideas of the ilk are becoming so popular, among molecular biologist. Because they realize they have to get the origins of life off earth and into a wider universe where they can make all kinds of unfounded, unverifiable, imaginings of life's natural creation.

You know I have what I would call a reasonable belief in God's existence. Here I am presenting what evidence, or what I see as evidence of a god's actions. I am looking for any one to say why compared to pathogenesis, one is more likely than the other. I would put an intelligently governed process at 80-90% sure and abiogenesis at 10-20%.

The RNA orientation of sugars and nucleotides. That the orientation can be imbued by the simple kinetic of stirring. But to create the sugars the stirring would be in a direction opposite of the direction used to make the nucleotides. That even bringing these two chemicals together to form one molecule of RNA would be impossible in the archeon ocean. Or having many RNA molecules together would lead to chains not suited for life.

If the idea of Inferred Design can not be refuted then it is reasonable and logical to accept the ID cell as fact. Some ask me were is my evidence. I present it. And yet It is not torn to shreds like it is a day dream or something without merit.
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 3:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:50:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:51:37 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is alway easo to throw rocks at hypothesis and give reasoning why things can't happen especially for relatively young hypotheses around abiogenesis, many of which we know will ultimately be proven wrong because there are many different versions.

You are ultimately arguing ID is required because the random Formation of life is too improbable to ever have happened.

However, highly improbable things happen every day. See the guy who crashed an airplane in a house he previously owned? Ever hear of the Israel lottery a few years back when the exact same numbers were pulled within a couple months of each other.

The important thing now with abiogenesis it to encourage many different theories until they can be evaluated and whittled down to more probable senarios.

In other words it needs more time to better develop. Anyone who is arguing abiogenesis can't happen because it is insanely improbable just don't have a good grasp of probabiliy and how highly improbable things can and do happen.

Thanks for addressing the probability angle. My case for an intelligently designed life, is that the very properties of life preclude it's natural emergence. As new evidence comes forward this conclusion may be over turned. I say using Inferred Design will help even answer those questions. Like the scenario for Amino Acid being inside hail, this is actually in support of a abiogenesis view.

But as we stand here to day, with what evidence we do have. It is obvious that the environment needed to create one small component of a living cell, is or can not be the same environment to produce another part, that bringing these parts together would have to be in a different environment, yet this would also be destructive to other components.

It possible that it was not built in a day. It is even possible that it was not built in the same environment. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have enough information to really say we can prove or disprove the random formation of life. There is a lot of work in a lot of areas that is new and exposes knowledge that is startling. There is even work in non living systems that demonstrate self replicating systems. Look up Philip Marcus at Berkley who has experiments in fluids showed self replicating vortices in fluids.

How the chemicals and molecules came to earth or were formed is probably the easy part to explain. The hard part is figuring the nature of the first life, what it may have been, and how it came together to be self replicating. When we start seeing non living thing organize when energy enters a system, it becomes much more evident that the possibility emerges.

It is like asking what are the chances nature could make stonehenge, or create somewhere in the universe a lightbulb. I am not saying it is a matter of incredible odds. I am saying it is a matter of construction. Like an ice sculpture in the Sahara.

It is always hard to imagine something extremely improbable until it happens. What's the odds that the Israel lottery would pull the exact same numbers within two months? A lot of people attributed that to intelligence design too (fraud)

This may sound unreasonable or illogical to you. But it is already becoming wildly accepted that earth could not naturally create life.

That is wildly overstated. There is a very low percentage of people who believe life randomly formed to begin with and there are plenty who are still dedicated to understanding the pathways that may have given life to life.

Which is why Pansmermia and other ideas of the ilk are becoming so popular, among molecular biologist. Because they realize they have to get the origins of life off earth and into a wider universe where they can make all kinds of unfounded, unverifiable, imaginings of life's natural creation.

There is nothing incompatible with abiogenesis and coming from outerspace. It just gives more possibilities to the conditions that could randomly form life. Greater odds, great!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 3:23:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 3:05:17 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:50:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:51:37 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is alway easo to throw rocks at hypothesis and give reasoning why things can't happen especially for relatively young hypotheses around abiogenesis, many of which we know will ultimately be proven wrong because there are many different versions.

You are ultimately arguing ID is required because the random Formation of life is too improbable to ever have happened.

However, highly improbable things happen every day. See the guy who crashed an airplane in a house he previously owned? Ever hear of the Israel lottery a few years back when the exact same numbers were pulled within a couple months of each other.

The important thing now with abiogenesis it to encourage many different theories until they can be evaluated and whittled down to more probable senarios.

In other words it needs more time to better develop. Anyone who is arguing abiogenesis can't happen because it is insanely improbable just don't have a good grasp of probability and how highly improbable things can and do happen.

Thanks for addressing the probability angle. My case for an intelligently designed life, is that the very properties of life preclude it's natural emergence. As new evidence comes forward this conclusion may be over turned. I say using Inferred Design will help even answer those questions. Like the scenario for Amino Acid being inside hail, this is actually in support of a abjurer's view.

But as we stand here to day, with what evidence we do have. It is obvious that the environment needed to create one small component of a living cell, is or can not be the same environment to produce another part, that bringing these parts together would have to be in a different environment, yet this would also be destructive to other components.

It possible that it was not built in a day. It is even possible that it was not built in the same environment. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have enough information to really say we can prove or disprove the random formation of life. There is a lot of work in a lot of areas that is new and exposes knowledge that is startling. There is even work in non living systems that demonstrate self replicating systems. Look up Philip Marcus at Berkley who has experiments in fluids showed self replicating vortices in fluids.

How the chemicals and molecules came to earth or were formed is probably the easy part to explain. The hard part is figuring the nature of the first life, what it may have been, and how it came together to be self replicating. When we start seeing non living thing organize when energy enters a system, it becomes much more evident that the possibility emerges.

It is like asking what are the chances nature could make stonehenge, or create somewhere in the universe a light bulb. I am not saying it is a matter of incredible odds. I am saying it is a matter of construction. Like an ice sculpture in the Sahara.

It is always hard to imagine something extremely improbable until it happens. What's the odds that the Israel lottery would pull the exact same numbers within two months? A lot of people attributed that to intelligence design too (fraud)

This may sound unreasonable or illogical to you. But it is already becoming wildly accepted that earth could not naturally create life.

That is wildly overstated. There is a very low percentage of people who believe life randomly formed to begin with and there are plenty who are still dedicated to understanding the pathways that may have given life to life.

Which is why Pansmermia and other ideas of the ilk are becoming so popular, among molecular biologist. Because they realize they have to get the origins of life off earth and into a wider universe where they can make all kinds of unfounded, unverifiable, imaginings of life's natural creation.

There is nothing incompatible with abiogenesis and coming from outerspace. It just gives more possibilities to the conditions that could randomly form life. Greater odds, great!

Time is a factor to consider. In fact I consider it in just the example of Amino Acids. That if their time in the atmosphere was long with out a protective mechanism they would disintegrate. We have a good understanding of the molecule half-life and their precursors' half-life. We can plot a Venn diagram of the conditions evident and their projected convergence. This can be displayed and plotted along a third axis for time.

As for the probability. I understand how extreme odds work. But as with the example of an Ice Sculpture, say a swan, naturally occurring in the Sahara desert? Why is that found to be impossible or unlikely. You say because the odds are at extreme, but extreme odds can still happen. I say it can not happen because the Sahara does not have the water or the temperature or the erosional abilities, to produce a swan made of ice. I'm sure many look forward to the future in hopes that these questions pertaining to the living cell will be answered naturally.

I certainly can not be held as stupid, or irrational, based on the information we have at hand? Actually based with the information we have at hand, has already convinced many and many atheist that there is a god. I'm not even postulating the intelligent designer is god. Just remarking on the validity of the conclusion is based on available evidence and reason.

I will look up the research you mention and get back to you with my take on it.
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 3:38:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 3:23:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 3:05:17 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:50:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:51:37 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is alway easo to throw rocks at hypothesis and give reasoning why things can't happen especially for relatively young hypotheses around abiogenesis, many of which we know will ultimately be proven wrong because there are many different versions.

You are ultimately arguing ID is required because the random Formation of life is too improbable to ever have happened.

However, highly improbable things happen every day. See the guy who crashed an airplane in a house he previously owned? Ever hear of the Israel lottery a few years back when the exact same numbers were pulled within a couple months of each other.

The important thing now with abiogenesis it to encourage many different theories until they can be evaluated and whittled down to more probable senarios.

In other words it needs more time to better develop. Anyone who is arguing abiogenesis can't happen because it is insanely improbable just don't have a good grasp of probability and how highly improbable things can and do happen.

Thanks for addressing the probability angle. My case for an intelligently designed life, is that the very properties of life preclude it's natural emergence. As new evidence comes forward this conclusion may be over turned. I say using Inferred Design will help even answer those questions. Like the scenario for Amino Acid being inside hail, this is actually in support of a abjurer's view.

But as we stand here to day, with what evidence we do have. It is obvious that the environment needed to create one small component of a living cell, is or can not be the same environment to produce another part, that bringing these parts together would have to be in a different environment, yet this would also be destructive to other components.

It possible that it was not built in a day. It is even possible that it was not built in the same environment. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have enough information to really say we can prove or disprove the random formation of life. There is a lot of work in a lot of areas that is new and exposes knowledge that is startling. There is even work in non living systems that demonstrate self replicating systems. Look up Philip Marcus at Berkley who has experiments in fluids showed self replicating vortices in fluids.

How the chemicals and molecules came to earth or were formed is probably the easy part to explain. The hard part is figuring the nature of the first life, what it may have been, and how it came together to be self replicating. When we start seeing non living thing organize when energy enters a system, it becomes much more evident that the possibility emerges.

It is like asking what are the chances nature could make stonehenge, or create somewhere in the universe a light bulb. I am not saying it is a matter of incredible odds. I am saying it is a matter of construction. Like an ice sculpture in the Sahara.

It is always hard to imagine something extremely improbable until it happens. What's the odds that the Israel lottery would pull the exact same numbers within two months? A lot of people attributed that to intelligence design too (fraud)

This may sound unreasonable or illogical to you. But it is already becoming wildly accepted that earth could not naturally create life.

That is wildly overstated. There is a very low percentage of people who believe life randomly formed to begin with and there are plenty who are still dedicated to understanding the pathways that may have given life to life.

Which is why Pansmermia and other ideas of the ilk are becoming so popular, among molecular biologist. Because they realize they have to get the origins of life off earth and into a wider universe where they can make all kinds of unfounded, unverifiable, imaginings of life's natural creation.

There is nothing incompatible with abiogenesis and coming from outerspace. It just gives more possibilities to the conditions that could randomly form life. Greater odds, great!

Time is a factor to consider. In fact I consider it in just the example of Amino Acids. That if their time in the atmosphere was long with out a protective mechanism they would disintegrate. We have a good understanding of the molecule half-life and their precursors' half-life. We can plot a Venn diagram of the conditions evident and their projected convergence. This can be displayed and plotted along a third axis for time.

As for the probability. I understand how extreme odds work. But as with the example of an Ice Sculpture, say a swan, naturally occurring in the Sahara desert? Why is that found to be impossible or unlikely. You say because the odds are at extreme, but extreme odds can still happen. I say it can not happen because the Sahara does not have the water or the temperature or the erosional abilities, to produce a swan made of ice. I'm sure many look forward to the future in hopes that these questions pertaining to the living cell will be answered naturally.

You are right. If no water no ice, and no swan not happening in sahara. I question though when it comes to the possibility of the random formulation of life whether you are fully considering all posibilities. It is a young field there is much to be discovered including the early conditions on earth. We don't know what was there and what was not.

I certainly can not be held as stupid, or irrational, based on the information we have at hand? Actually based with the information we have at hand, has already convinced many and many atheist that there is a god. I'm not even postulating the intelligent designer is god. Just remarking on the validity of the conclusion is based on available evidence and reason.


I will look up the research you mention and get back to you with my take on it.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 3:46:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Abiogenesis is a theory incompatible with the evidence of the early earth. implausible as means to produce life or the precursors of life.

John Sutherland's research shows that 2 of the 4 ribonecleotides required to form RNA can form on an early Earth. Research is still being done to test for if the other 2 can.

There was also a second Urey-Miller experiment that does work in an early Earth combining gasses from volcanic activity and lightening in order to form amino acids.

I have heard it said that a cell wall is not need for the precursors of life. Sswdwm stated this, "I agree with you, cell walls are significantly more complex than membranes as far as I understand, and needless for abiogenesis"

RNA like life is more likely to have come before cells.

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing. I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

Halobacteria are still extremely complex to the original "life"caused by any currently excepted abiogenesis hypothesis.

I also look forward to any one stating that abiogenesis on earth is a likely scenario. Given the option between intelligently designed and abiogeneis, I take the stand that life was fabricated by an intelligently governed process.

I'll present one of a multitude of issues with abiogenesis. The production of RNA with Right handed sugars and Left chiral Proteins. As well as the degradation of RNA in the Archeon Ocean which by the best estimates had alkaline conditions and pH.

Any other scenario's that exclude an intelligently governed process are welcomed to be debated on as well.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 3:46:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 3:38:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 3:23:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 3:05:17 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:50:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 11:51:37 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is alway easo to throw rocks at hypothesis and give reasoning why things can't happen especially for relatively young hypotheses around abiogenesis, many of which we know will ultimately be proven wrong because there are many different versions.

You are ultimately arguing ID is required because the random Formation of life is too improbable to ever have happened.

However, highly improbable things happen every day. See the guy who crashed an airplane in a house he previously owned? Ever hear of the Israel lottery a few years back when the exact same numbers were pulled within a couple months of each other.

The important thing now with abiogenesis it to encourage many different theories until they can be evaluated and whittled down to more probable senarios.

In other words it needs more time to better develop. Anyone who is arguing abiogenesis can't happen because it is insanely improbable just don't have a good grasp of probability and how highly improbable things can and do happen.

Thanks for addressing the probability angle. My case for an intelligently designed life, is that the very properties of life preclude it's natural emergence. As new evidence comes forward this conclusion may be over turned. I say using Inferred Design will help even answer those questions. Like the scenario for Amino Acid being inside hail, this is actually in support of a abjurer's view.

But as we stand here to day, with what evidence we do have. It is obvious that the environment needed to create one small component of a living cell, is or can not be the same environment to produce another part, that bringing these parts together would have to be in a different environment, yet this would also be destructive to other components.

It possible that it was not built in a day. It is even possible that it was not built in the same environment. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have enough information to really say we can prove or disprove the random formation of life. There is a lot of work in a lot of areas that is new and exposes knowledge that is startling. There is even work in non living systems that demonstrate self replicating systems. Look up Philip Marcus at Berkley who has experiments in fluids showed self replicating vortices in fluids.

How the chemicals and molecules came to earth or were formed is probably the easy part to explain. The hard part is figuring the nature of the first life, what it may have been, and how it came together to be self replicating. When we start seeing non living thing organize when energy enters a system, it becomes much more evident that the possibility emerges.

It is like asking what are the chances nature could make stonehenge, or create somewhere in the universe a light bulb. I am not saying it is a matter of incredible odds. I am saying it is a matter of construction. Like an ice sculpture in the Sahara.

It is always hard to imagine something extremely improbable until it happens. What's the odds that the Israel lottery would pull the exact same numbers within two months? A lot of people attributed that to intelligence design too (fraud)

This may sound unreasonable or illogical to you. But it is already becoming wildly accepted that earth could not naturally create life.

That is wildly overstated. There is a very low percentage of people who believe life randomly formed to begin with and there are plenty who are still dedicated to understanding the pathways that may have given life to life.

Which is why Pansmermia and other ideas of the ilk are becoming so popular, among molecular biologist. Because they realize they have to get the origins of life off earth and into a wider universe where they can make all kinds of unfounded, unverifiable, imaginings of life's natural creation.

There is nothing incompatible with abiogenesis and coming from outerspace. It just gives more possibilities to the conditions that could randomly form life. Greater odds, great!

Time is a factor to consider. In fact I consider it in just the example of Amino Acids. That if their time in the atmosphere was long with out a protective mechanism they would disintegrate. We have a good understanding of the molecule half-life and their precursors' half-life. We can plot a Venn diagram of the conditions evident and their projected convergence. This can be displayed and plotted along a third axis for time.

As for the probability. I understand how extreme odds work. But as with the example of an Ice Sculpture, say a swan, naturally occurring in the Sahara desert? Why is that found to be impossible or unlikely. You say because the odds are at extreme, but extreme odds can still happen. I say it can not happen because the Sahara does not have the water or the temperature or the erosional abilities, to produce a swan made of ice. I'm sure many look forward to the future in hopes that these questions pertaining to the living cell will be answered naturally.

You are right. If no water no ice, and no swan not happening in sahara. I question though when it comes to the possibility of the random formulation of life whether you are fully considering all posibilities. It is a young field there is much to be discovered including the early conditions on earth. We don't know what was there and what was not.

I certainly can not be held as stupid, or irrational, based on the information we have at hand? Actually based with the information we have at hand, has already convinced many and many atheist that there is a god. I'm not even postulating the intelligent designer is god. Just remarking on the validity of the conclusion is based on available evidence and reason.


I will look up the research you mention and get back to you with my take on it.

Not a complete and 100% accurate picture no. But for instance, the Archean ocean and the atmosphere are all being assumed to lack vast amounts of oxygen. Why is this or what evidence for this is there? essentially none. Scientist already infer the lack of oxygen to the fact that the biological molecules all oxidize so easily.

No evidence. Just an assumption from the properties of the very molecules in question. Same goes for why no one suggests the earth was 500 degrees at the time life emerged.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:20:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 3:46:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Abiogenesis is a theory incompatible with the evidence of the early earth. implausible as means to produce life or the precursors of life.

John Sutherland's research shows that 2 of the 4 ribonecleotides required to form RNA can form on an early Earth. Research is still being done to test for if the other 2 can.


For readers of this forum the paper is at http://hoffman.cm.utexas.edu...

I thought I addressed this in the debate or at least gave a link to this study. It is a very interesting experiment. But the chemistry used was delicate and managed by a very intelligent chemist.

For instance, "Although the issue of temporally separated supplies of glycolaldehyde and glyceraldehyde remains a problem, a number of situations could have arisen that would result in the conditions of heating and progressive dehydration followed by cooling, rehydration and ultraviolet irradiation"

The ultraviolet irradiation was sustained for a particular amount then stopped because it would continue to destroy the chemicals the Chemist was looking for.

"Limited irradiation of aqueous solutions of cytosine nucleosides
with ultraviolet light having an emission maximum at 254nm results
in the reversible formation of photohydrates and partial hydrolysis to
the corresponding uracil nucleosides. Prolonged irradiation causes additional chemistry to take place, and results in the destruction of most pyrimidine nucleosides and nucleotides"

I think the study was great. But not a stake to the heart of Inferred Design. I think it even adds to the Intelligently Designed case because one can see how controlled and refined the natural processes have to be, to even produce a small component of life.

There was also a second Urey-Miller experiment that does work in an early Earth combining gasses from volcanic activity and lightening in order to form amino acids.


I think the Urey-Miller experiment is awesome. But gets thrown around as proof life came from abiotic conditions, way too much. Miller and Urey both show much more restraint and honest assessment of their achievement, then many on this forum and in the news. The handiness of the elements were still not addressed in that experiment.

I have heard it said that a cell wall is not need for the precursors of life. Sswdwm stated this, "I agree with you, cell walls are significantly more complex than membranes as far as I understand, and needless for abiogenesis"

RNA like life is more likely to have come before cells.


Which is why most the discussion is on RNA. But I don't think a self replicating RNA chain could exist with out a barrier of some kind from the outside ocean.

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing. I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

Halobacteria are still extremely complex to the original "life"caused by any currently excepted abiogenesis hypothesis.

I need a subject for us to reference to. Halobacteria is a good example. I am not advocating for a bi-layer lipid cell wall. Or even addressing the DNA in halobacteria, yet. What we are talking about RNA, applies to precursors to live.


I also look forward to any one stating that abiogenesis on earth is a likely scenario. Given the option between intelligently designed and abiogeneis, I take the stand that life was fabricated by an intelligently governed process.

I'll present one of a multitude of issues with abiogenesis. The production of RNA with Right handed sugars and Left chiral Proteins. As well as the degradation of RNA in the Archeon Ocean which by the best estimates had alkaline conditions and pH.

Any other scenario's that exclude an intelligently governed process are welcomed to be debated on as well.

Isn't it amazing that in our search for the natural process for life, we are forced into conducting some very constrained, refined, and intelligently arranged lab experiments? Ha ha don't bother with this remark, it's snarky.
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 7:01:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You should see the requirements need to make dumb ol' gold in the laboratory. Lot harder than making life. Heck today there is an article that some researchers added to new pair of molecules to dna. Instead of boring A-T and C-G we now have another pair to encode proteins with. Should be interesting to see what bioengineering come up with.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 7:47:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 7:01:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
You should see the requirements need to make dumb ol' gold in the laboratory. Lot harder than making life. Heck today there is an article that some researchers added to new pair of molecules to dna. Instead of boring A-T and C-G we now have another pair to encode proteins with. Should be interesting to see what bioengineering come up with.

I don't know if you were being facetious, but I certainly agree. And think Inferred Design has a place in forwarding such advances.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 8:23:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing.

A cell wall is not necessary. Multitudes of cells exist today without cell walls. A selectively permeable membrane wouldn't permit polar molecules to pass through, so the biological chemicals within the cell would be saved from hydrolysis and oxidation.

Do you mean that, at the earliest stages of when cells were first made, a cell wall was necessary?

I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

Is there such thing as a semipermeable cell wall?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 8:43:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 8:23:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing.

A cell wall is not necessary. Multitudes of cells exist today without cell walls. A selectively permeable membrane wouldn't permit polar molecules to pass through, so the biological chemicals within the cell would be saved from hydrolysis and oxidation.

Do you mean that, at the earliest stages of when cells were first made, a cell wall was necessary?

I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

Is there such thing as a semipermeable cell wall?

I agree a membrane would have to be in place. Can you make an argument for the abiotic emergence of this membrane?

It's kind of redundant actually, because a cell wall is semipermeable. Vesicles are non permeable accept by gas and they are used as a buoyancy system for vertical movement of bacteria and cells in aqueous solutions.

I am perfectly willing to forgo a requirement of cell wall. But then I would need a cell membrane for the precursor of life and life itself.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 8:46:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 8:43:29 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:23:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing.

A cell wall is not necessary. Multitudes of cells exist today without cell walls. A selectively permeable membrane wouldn't permit polar molecules to pass through, so the biological chemicals within the cell would be saved from hydrolysis and oxidation.

Do you mean that, at the earliest stages of when cells were first made, a cell wall was necessary?

I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

Is there such thing as a semipermeable cell wall?

I agree a membrane would have to be in place. Can you make an argument for the abiotic emergence of this membrane?

It's kind of redundant actually, because a cell wall is semipermeable. Vesicles are non permeable accept by gas and they are used as a buoyancy system for vertical movement of bacteria and cells in aqueous solutions.

I am perfectly willing to forgo a requirement of cell wall. But then I would need a cell membrane for the precursor of life and life itself.

Oh, I thought you were arguing that a cell wall was absolutely necessary, when I was thinking that a cell membrane would be necessary -- not necessarily a cell wall.

I don't know how the membrane would've come into place. A phospholipid bilayer would be incredibly hard to produce under any circumstances, and due to my lack of knowledge in that area of formation, I can't say anything conclusive.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 8:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 8:46:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:43:29 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:23:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing.

A cell wall is not necessary. Multitudes of cells exist today without cell walls. A selectively permeable membrane wouldn't permit polar molecules to pass through, so the biological chemicals within the cell would be saved from hydrolysis and oxidation.

Do you mean that, at the earliest stages of when cells were first made, a cell wall was necessary?

I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

Is there such thing as a semipermeable cell wall?

I agree a membrane would have to be in place. Can you make an argument for the abiotic emergence of this membrane?

It's kind of redundant actually, because a cell wall is semipermeable. Vesicles are non permeable accept by gas and they are used as a buoyancy system for vertical movement of bacteria and cells in aqueous solutions.

I am perfectly willing to forgo a requirement of cell wall. But then I would need a cell membrane for the precursor of life and life itself.

Oh, I thought you were arguing that a cell wall was absolutely necessary, when I was thinking that a cell membrane would be necessary -- not necessarily a cell wall.

I don't know how the membrane would've come into place. A phospholipid bilayer would be incredibly hard to produce under any circumstances, and due to my lack of knowledge in that area of formation, I can't say anything conclusive.

Which is another reason as a guide I chose halobacteria it has quite a simple cell envelope. A simpler cell envelope than that found in halobacteria would still be incredibly difficult to have formed alongside or convergent with the other components of the cell.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 12:53:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 8:46:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:43:29 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/7/2014 8:23:47 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/7/2014 12:13:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I outright reject this. And look forward to him defending it so. The cell wall is needed because biological chemicals that are the components of life are prone to hydrolysis and/ or oxidizing.

A cell wall is not necessary. Multitudes of cells exist today without cell walls. A selectively permeable membrane wouldn't permit polar molecules to pass through, so the biological chemicals within the cell would be saved from hydrolysis and oxidation.

Do you mean that, at the earliest stages of when cells were first made, a cell wall was necessary?

I think early life could of had a more semipermeable cell wall. Especially the type found in halobacteria that are much simpler membranes.

Is there such thing as a semipermeable cell wall?

I agree a membrane would have to be in place. Can you make an argument for the abiotic emergence of this membrane?

It's kind of redundant actually, because a cell wall is semipermeable. Vesicles are non permeable accept by gas and they are used as a buoyancy system for vertical movement of bacteria and cells in aqueous solutions.

I am perfectly willing to forgo a requirement of cell wall. But then I would need a cell membrane for the precursor of life and life itself.

Oh, I thought you were arguing that a cell wall was absolutely necessary, when I was thinking that a cell membrane would be necessary -- not necessarily a cell wall.

I don't know how the membrane would've come into place. A phospholipid bilayer would be incredibly hard to produce under any circumstances, and due to my lack of knowledge in that area of formation, I can't say anything conclusive.

I reread some the posts I think the confusion was on my part. Thanks for bringing it up so it could be clarified.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 1:58:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:57:47 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:


I am a theist, I believe that it was intelligently governed, but I believe that the designer designed the scientific laws as a program and let the creation follow said program.

Then for Chris'sakes join the ID team.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.