An attempt to cut through several layers of bovine excrement

[bbbaldie]

Interesting attempt to dance around the ID label, but unconvincing.

I vehemently oppose the teaching of life's spontaneous origin in public schools as a FACT.

Vehemently? That's a curious reaction. Maybe you're getting your 'facts' about what's taught in schools from 'outre space' emails. Please submit evidence that schools are teaching Abiogenesis as fact. While you're at it, please submit your own theory of the origin of life, if it differs from Abiogenesis. Inquiring minds want to know.

My problem, to state it yet again, is with teaching spontaneous in generation of life in school as an established fact. It is, in fact, far from that. It's a theory, one which involves odds that are staggering in their impossibility.

You might as well throw in some real mathematics a little more precisely quantifying 'staggering in their impossibility'.

Thanks in advance for the effort.

I'm assuming you deny that schools teach abiogenesis (really don't see a need to capitalize on my end) as fact?

I helped in the home schooling of my son his junior and senior years. Home schooling? I'm sure that puts me in a class that an elitist sniffs at. His high school biology book stated that life spontaneously arose from a sea of organic soup. No proof of the process, just speculation. Hell, not even any proof that such a sea ever existed. But it explains, kinda-sorta, how life might have begun with no outside influence. Thank Darwin for that!

The odds against a single protein molecule forming randomly in an organic soup are 1 in 10 to the 113th power (unfortunately, sup tags don't seem to work here). According to mathematicians, anything with odds of over 10 to the 50th power opposing it is considered mathematically impossible. And those odds are against a protein molecule, NOT an entire cell containing thousands of them.

Let's not forget that the suspension of nutrients in seawater is a factor that strongly works against them getting together. And even if they did, there's that cell wall that must be formed before the contents can be confined, so that the actual cell can form itself, nucleus and other parts. I remember reading somewhere that a scientist speculated that the organics gathered in a small hollow sphere inside a rock, and a cell wall eventually formed to shield them. Yeah, THAT sounds feasible.

I don't want my own theory of life's origin taught in schools. As a matter of fact, it's not relevant to this conversation. The last thing I want you to do is expend your valuable energy proving my personal beliefs wrong.

Instead, my esteemed colleague, why don't you quote me some more accurate figures for Abiogenesis, as you call it? I'm assuming you will disagree (perhaps even vehemently? ) with those I quoted. And please, elucidate as to whether you agree or disagree with my original premise that Abiogenesis should be taught to schoolkids as a theory.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bum Luck]

The odds against a single protein molecule forming randomly in an organic soup are 1 in 10 to the 113th power (unfortunately, sup tags don't seem to work here). According to mathematicians, anything with odds of over 10 to the 50th power opposing it is considered mathematically impossible. And those odds are against a protein molecule, NOT an entire cell containing thousands of them.

Let's not forget that the suspension of nutrients in seawater is a factor that strongly works against them getting together. And even if they did, there's that cell wall that must be formed before the contents can be confined, so that the actual cell can form itself, nucleus and other parts. I remember reading somewhere that a scientist speculated that the organics gathered in a small hollow sphere inside a rock, and a cell wall eventually formed to shield them. Yeah, THAT sounds feasible.

I don't want my own theory of life's origin taught in schools. As a matter of fact, it's not relevant to this conversation. The last thing I want you to do is expend your valuable energy proving my personal beliefs wrong.

Instead, my esteemed colleague, why don't you quote me some more accurate figures for Abiogenesis, as you call it? I'm assuming you will disagree (perhaps even vehemently? ) with those I quoted. And please, elucidate as to whether you agree or disagree with my original premise that Abiogenesis should be taught to schoolkids as a theory.

In the Miller–Urey experiments in 1952 Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." Actually he was wrong. After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. He just couldn't test for them. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and even more than the 20 that naturally occur in life on earth. So much for the apparently faulty 1 in 10 to the 113th power number you quoted without any substantiation. The only other possibility is that Miller should have bought lottery tickets, but I'd guess that you could replicate the experiment in home schooling, since it isn't very complex. For my reference, you can Google Miller-Urey and read all about it.

Let's not forget that the suspension of nutrients in seawater is a factor that strongly works against them getting together. And even if they did, there's that cell wall that must be formed before the contents can be confined, so that the actual cell can form itself, nucleus and other parts. I remember reading somewhere that a scientist speculated that the organics gathered in a small hollow sphere inside a rock, and a cell wall eventually formed to shield them. Yeah, THAT sounds feasible.

This process likely occurred about 3.5 Billion years ago; just what nutrients in seawater are you talking about?

When I have trouble understanding issues, I generally try to learn about the subject through the old mechanism of not talking but listening to folks with more knowledge than myself. I can't recall making statements like yours, collected here:

"There is a steaming pile of stinky stuff behind the world of fossils, the various ideas about their origin, and common belief."

"However, I respectfully submit that the intellectual scientific community has taken stuff for granted that is hard to swallow."

"And even if it WAS done, okay, that would prove that under extremely careful laboratory conditions, it's possible. By chance? Not so much so."

"Darwinian evolution" ................... really is a religion of sorts, isn't it?"

"And if they are taught that a single-celled alga eventually evolved into a rhinoceros, once again, someone is doing something naughty, calling a theory a fact."

"No, I'm someone who doesn't swallow loads of doo-doo because I'm told to because a Highly Respected Person tells me I should."

I have to admit, I haven't had this debate experience since I was a freshman in college. Just how many amino acids can be balanced on the head of a pin? I like to think I've benefited from that education, and moved on with critical thinking skills.

Oh, yeah, after looking into the issue of presenting the issue of life evolving from molecules as fact, I'm OK with that, since there is a pretty clear path of evidence and there isn't any other alternative with a shred of scientific evidence.

Here's a book you might find interesting: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth

Cheers.

 

[bbbaldie]

I'm not going to pay for the article, but I did find the comment thread enlightening.

Quote: "Oh, yeah, after looking into the issue of presenting the issue of life evolving from molecules as fact, I'm OK with that, since there is a pretty clear path of evidence and there isn't any other alternative with a shred of scientific evidence."

Thank you for the wonderful distillation of your position. As I said before, it takes faith to believe in what one believes in. Clearly, your faith is steering you to decide what's right. "Pretty clear" is good enough for you. I have my own beliefs, which, while differing from yours, similarly rely on research, reasoning, and faith.

When a theory which requires faith to accept is taught to impressionable youngsters as fact, I still have a problem with that. The fact that the theory is "pretty clear" still doesn't make it factual. Perhaps when scientists stop "aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the lab­oratory—essentially giving life a second start to understand how it could have started the first time," and actually accomplish that, my position will change. I'm not holding my breath.

And with that, I'll stop commenting. No sarcastic applause, please.

 

[Bum Luck]

I'm not going to pay for the article, but I did find the comment thread enlightening.

Quote: "Oh, yeah, after looking into the issue of presenting the issue of life evolving from molecules as fact, I'm OK with that, since there is a pretty clear path of evidence and there isn't any other alternative with a shred of scientific evidence."

Thank you for the wonderful distillation of your position. As I said before, it takes faith to believe in what one believes in. Clearly, your faith is steering you to decide what's right. "Pretty clear" is good enough for you. I have my own beliefs, which, while differing from yours, similarly rely on research, reasoning, and faith.

When a theory which requires faith to accept is taught to impressionable youngsters as fact, I still have a problem with that. The fact that the theory is "pretty clear" still doesn't make it factual. Perhaps when scientists stop "aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the lab­oratory—essentially giving life a second start to understand how it could have started the first time," and actually accomplish that, my position will change. I'm not holding my breath.

And with that, I'll stop commenting. No sarcastic applause, please.

You don't have to pay for the article - you can likely get it for free through your library, but I'm not waiting for a book report from you.

"As I said before, it takes faith to believe in what one believes in. Clearly, your faith is steering you to decide what's right. "Pretty clear" is good enough for you. I have my own beliefs, which, while differing from yours, similarly rely on research, reasoning, and faith."

No, I clearly said my position was based on scientific evidence, not faith. Yours is based on faith, since there is not a shred of scientific evidence that life started any other way. My daughter, a Biology major, declined to read your post, distilling it thus: "To accept any other origin of life, one would have to repudiate the entire discipline of Biology." By pretty clear, I meant the brief time I spent learning about it this afternoon. I am not going to finish a degree in Biology just to argue with you. You can't convince someone contrary to their faith. Hence my quote from Nietzsche, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

I'll agree with you on this statement, "When a theory which requires faith to accept is taught to impressionable youngsters as fact, I still have a problem with that."

I do too, but for a different reason. What is euphemistically called "Intelligent Design" is actually taught as fact, but in fact, as I have said before, has not a shred of scientific evidence to support it.

I'm not sure that proving the origin of life has the research priority of alleviating dreaded diseases like Hodgkin's lymphoma, Pancreatic cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, and so forth, nor does faith have much of a vector in the process.

We need scientists in the world for that to happen, but when you look at how far science has brought us in the last hundred years, it is 'pretty clear' that we need to keep going in that direction.

 

[piegrande]

How it all happened (see reference posting)

Quite frankly, this posting doesn't make much sense by itself. It relates to a long thread below, but a red warning seemed not to want me to add to an old posting. This discouraging adding to old postings is one of my pet peeves. The postings are there, and are available to read, but don't answer? I run a low traffic special interest board, and am and have been moderator on boards of various traffic counts. My view is if it is there to read, no one should be discouraged from commenting on it. If you don't want that, automatically delete old postings. Or, lock them.

See http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,379557.0.html below.

It was about not teaching personal theories to kids as fact, such things as creationism or big bang spontaneous creation of the universe by itself.

I wholeheartedly agree. I do think kids should be made aware of the main theories, as theories, both evolution and spontaneous self creation and at least mention creationism in passing, rather than pretending it is not to be discussed. Let them know the basics of each theory and why people would believe and disbelieve that theory. That is true education.

You see, I am a highly repentant former evolutionist. I graduated from high school in 1960. I was a darned good science student. I knew by memory all the "proofs" of evolution. I could tell you in great detail all about Archaeopteryx as proof of species changing into each other. I could tell you how the Coelacanth was proof that the species constantly changed over time, and the Coelacanth had lived millions of years ago, but gradually changed to something else as all species must. And, I am sure there was more.

I was a gullible young man, and assumed they really knew.

Eventually, as all curious people must, I learned they did not have proof. They did not know. They were guessing, plain and simple, and assumed we, the great unwashed, would believe anything as long as it was presented as a consensus of many "scientists". Of course, they were correct, but that approach only works as long as you keep down on the farm. Once they've seen Paree, it's all over.

Coelacanth turns out to still exist, and is sold as a food fish in some places. There was no slow and gradual change at all. Archaeopteryx was a separate species, just as kangaroos and elephants are. There is no proof whatsoever that they were an intermediate stage between other species. Just wild guesses by people who do not believe in God.

When lots of information was developed about DNA it became apparent that Darwin based his theory on a loss of genetic materials in species, such as certain birds which changed colors between islands he visited. The different breeds of dogs are also caused by a loss of genetic materials.

Yet, for a species change to occur, genetic material must be added, and it must be added in a manner which supports survival and reproduction of the new species, which of course implies two simultaneous fertile specimens of different sex.

So far there is no proof of such a thing happening in nature. Just more conjecture.

However, I did not intend to get into useless and never ending debates. My point was there is no solid proof of any of the theories on creation of the universe or the different species. Not only evolution and creationism, but self-creation of the Universe.

As baldie said, each person will find his own explanation, his own theory he supports and believes. But, no unproven theory should be taught as absolute fact, because there is no such evidence.

I can't prove my own theory how things came to be, and so I don't think my theory should be taught as fact, either. That is pretty much what I think Baldie was trying to say as well.

 

[DigginThePast]

Re: How it all happened (see reference posting)

Quite frankly, this posting doesn't make much sense by itself. It relates to a long thread below, but a red warning seemed not to want me to add to an old posting. This discouraging adding to old postings is one of my pet peeves. The postings are there, and are available to read, but don't answer? I run a low traffic special interest board, and am and have been moderator on boards of various traffic counts. My view is if it is there to read, no one should be discouraged from commenting on it. If you don't want that, automatically delete old postings. Or, lock them.

See http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,379557.0.html below.

[mod]It is a simple "Heads Up". Not discouraging a new post:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Even with this warning in place we still get Banner votes on years old threads.

Anyway, I merged your post. Post away.........
[/mod]

 

[Harry Pristis]

It seems that 'piegrande' was not as good a science student as he thinks . . . at least, he has failed to keep up with his studies. He has made a muddle here of genetics, the science which offers the most compelling arguments for evolution.

Facts are facts. Science relies on facts . . . they're called "observations." A scientist gathers a bunch of related observations (facts), then posits an explanation for the relationship. When enough observations have been made and criticized by other scientists, the explanation may be called "a theory." A theory is not a finished product of the scientific collective. A theory is always to be criticized and refined as new observations are made (often using new technology as in genetics or cosmology).

Evolution is a theory that has been scrutinized, criticized scientifically, and refined to a point that the certainty of evolution is not in doubt (except by a few who find in the concept a clash with their poorly-informed or irrational beliefs). Will there be further refinements to the theory . . . absolutely.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." --Theodore Dobzhansky

 

[piegrande]

I note a personal insult in your posting. Typical.

No, evolution is not past any doubt. If you want to believe that, it is your right to do so. Ever since the day of Darwin, so called scientists have been frantically looking for real solid proof of the increase in genetic material required to change one species to another. Every generation says they have the proof. Twenty years later, they are proved wrong, and start digging again. But, never do they admit that many years with no real proof means their theory is in doubt. "Evolution is true, we just haven't found all the proof we need, give us more millions to play with."

Many people guessing still involves guesses, no matter how much they agree. Science is not a consensus of a select group which prohibits dissidence.

I do not say evolution is not the case, nor that it is not possible. I am saying loud and clear it is not proven beyond doubt.

Your posting is typical of evolutionists. The first thing you do when someone points out you have never proved it is an attack on their intelligence and/or education.

And, of course no one who does not believe in evolution will ever receive the needed Ph. D. to be allowed to state an opinion in your "rules." This is not science at all.

Your description of the scientific method somehow neglected to include examining all alternative possibilities, which you never do. You insult, get them tossed out of the University, get them fired, whatever you need to do to shut them up. Anyone in the public who discovers this loses all confidence in your theories. That nonsense is why religious people can be induced to believe in creationism so easily.

I have not stated my actual opinion, beyond the fact that evolution has NOT been proved beyond any doubt as you folks claim.

My actual opinion is it can never be known with absolute certitude what happened. Anyone who thinks it can suffers from excess self-confidence (a euphemism, I wish to avoid the sort of insults you folks always use.) All you can do is keep picking out strange phenomenon, and shouting, "Here is our proof."