|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 3, 2017 18:02:47 GMT
Including 10 year old future Biochemists? Either you don't know what Pasteur's experiments entailed or you know nothing about current abiogenesis research. Here's a hint - one of them involves boiling some nutrient broth (to kill any microorganisms) and leaving it for a few days in a flask that is open to the air and one that isn't then seeing if anything grew in them. The other isn't. The hubris of some religious people is stunning, you really believe you know better about biochemistry than someone like Jack Szostak. Perhaps you should email and remind him about Pasteur's work, maybe in all the hard work and excitement of getting a Nobel Prize he forgot, molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/The time and effort you spent bitching could have been spent explaining why abiogenesis is different from superstition Here's a basic summation: Pasteur with Spontaneous Generation: Proved that microorganisms didn't grow in a sterilized medium isolated from its environment (experimental group), but could appear in one open to its environment (control group), so that life wasn't arising from the material itself. Abiogenesis: Investigating the ways in which simple, organic compounds can combine to create fundamental elements of life (like RNA) in environments similar to early Earth in which life originally arose. The former has nothing to do with the latter. If anything, the former is one of the impetuses for the investigations of the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 4, 2017 1:02:34 GMT
The time and effort you spent bitching could have been spent explaining why abiogenesis is different from superstition Here's a basic summation: Pasteur with Spontaneous Generation: Proved that microorganisms didn't grow in a sterilized medium isolated from its environment (experimental group), but could appear in one open to its environment (control group), so that life wasn't arising from the material itself. Abiogenesis: Investigating the ways in which simple, organic compounds can combine to create fundamental elements of life (like RNA) in environments similar to early Earth in which life originally arose. The former has nothing to do with the latter. If anything, the former is one of the impetuses for the investigations of the latter. So, have these 'investigations' proven anything? I had a look at Ruth's link, and no surprises, it was all the 'if' and 'maybe' and 'perhaps'...
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 5, 2017 17:15:26 GMT
Here's a basic summation: Pasteur with Spontaneous Generation: Proved that microorganisms didn't grow in a sterilized medium isolated from its environment (experimental group), but could appear in one open to its environment (control group), so that life wasn't arising from the material itself. Abiogenesis: Investigating the ways in which simple, organic compounds can combine to create fundamental elements of life (like RNA) in environments similar to early Earth in which life originally arose. The former has nothing to do with the latter. If anything, the former is one of the impetuses for the investigations of the latter. So, have these 'investigations' proven anything?
Science is about evidence: proofs are for math. Yes, these investigations have provided a lot of evidence about many ways in which life could've risen from organic matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 6, 2017 0:11:42 GMT
So, have these 'investigations' proven anything?
Science is about evidence: proofs are for math. Yes, these investigations have provided a lot of evidence about many ways in which life could've risen from organic matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experimentSeriously? The discredited Miller-Urey experiment 60+ years ago is all you have got? |
|
|
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 6, 2017 0:27:29 GMT
The only thing discredited about Miller-Urey was the make up of early Earth. The fact remains that they proved that pre-organic material can come from non organic matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 6, 2017 0:32:50 GMT
The only thing discredited about Miller-Urey was the make up of early Earth. The fact remains that they proved that pre-organic material can come from non organic matter. You are lying. The whole Miller-Urey farce was discredited, as it showed nothing of the sort. Half a bob on "pre-organic" - you could say "oh, carbon, that is "pre-organic". |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 6, 2017 20:21:15 GMT
Seriously? The discredited Miller-Urey experiment 60+ years ago is all you have got? Not discredited. It's the most famous one I know about it. It's not a field I've deeply researched. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff out there you can read both online and off if you had any genuine interest in the subject, which you don't. This is all distracting from the original point that Pasteur's disproving of Spontaneous Generation has zero to do with modern abiogenesis. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 6, 2017 21:37:33 GMT
Here's a basic summation: Pasteur with Spontaneous Generation: Proved that microorganisms didn't grow in a sterilized medium isolated from its environment (experimental group), but could appear in one open to its environment (control group), so that life wasn't arising from the material itself. Abiogenesis: Investigating the ways in which simple, organic compounds can combine to create fundamental elements of life (like RNA) in environments similar to early Earth in which life originally arose. The former has nothing to do with the latter. If anything, the former is one of the impetuses for the investigations of the latter. So, have these 'investigations' proven anything? I had a look at Ruth's link, and no surprises, it was all the 'if' and 'maybe' and 'perhaps'...
Who said anything had been 'proven'. I linked to a site that describes some current abiogenesis research by a Nobel prizewinner. All scientific literature is written in those terms, the point of my post was to show you why Pasteur's experiments are irrelevant to current abiogenesis research. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 1:07:37 GMT
Who said anything had been 'proven'. You have in the past.  I don't see the relevance of the research you cited to Pasteur at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 1:09:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 1:22:21 GMT
Of course it is. Their contention that the atmosphere they worked on was like that of the early earth was the first thing discredited, and then we go on from there.
You mean "and then we stop there." The experiment still showed that you could get organic compounds from inorganic material, which was a major breakthrough. That it didn't happen in precisely that way is the reason more research is necessary, including into exactly what early earth atmosphere was like. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 1:39:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 7, 2017 2:00:30 GMT
Yeah, those look like unbiased, 100% reliable, truly scientific sources. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 3:48:41 GMT
Yeah, those look like unbiased, 100% reliable, truly scientific sources. So you'll ignore them? Silly me of course you will. They were the first that I found. I didn't, and don't have unlimited time,  |
|
|
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 7, 2017 4:04:17 GMT
The only thing discredited about Miller-Urey was the make up of early Earth. The fact remains that they proved that pre-organic material can come from non organic matter. You are lying. The whole Miller-Urey farce was discredited, as it showed nothing of the sort. Half a bob on "pre-organic" - you could say "oh, carbon, that is "pre-organic". No Ada I am not lying. The experiment was only discredited for there use of materials. They did not constitute what where the materials of early Earth. You really should get a little education on the topics you try to discuss |
|
|
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 7, 2017 7:41:11 GMT
Who said anything had been 'proven'. You have in the past. I don't see the relevance of the research you cited to Pasteur at all.
No I haven't. I'm very careful NOT to use the word prove in relation to science. Proof is for maths, science is about accumulating empirical evidence. Pasteur's experiments are entirely irrelevant to the research on abiogenesis in the Szostak and lab and all the other lab's researching this subject. That was my point. You seemed and the other poster (gottaluvafriend) seemed to think Pasteur had somehow shown that abiogenesis is impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Mar 7, 2017 7:45:12 GMT
Yeah, those look like unbiased, 100% reliable, truly scientific sources. So you'll ignore them? Silly me of course you will. They were the first that I found. I didn't, and don't have unlimited time, Yes, anybody with sense will summarily ignore your two utterly worthless and totally dishonest Creationist sources. Here they are once more: www.harunyahya.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16470/miller-experiment-theand creation.com/miller-urey-revisited-oxidizing-atmosphere Harun Yahya is a crackpot Turkist Islamist who makes videos with female audience members with too much makeup. Here are some other videos he's produced: Putting an end to the Darwinist materialist education would give a large scaled result against PKK
Iran supports Syria and the PKK because they are communists
Turkey obliges Darwinist education but also wages a struggle against the PKK, which is a Darwinist terror organization.Your second source is from Creation Ministries International and the article you cited repeats all the falsehoods and misstatements from a buffoon named Jonathan Wells. Wells likes to "discredit" the Miller-Urey experiment by the lies typical of his ilk. Read the wikipedia article for Wells and/or read this: ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/icons/gishlick_icons1.pdf
By the way, you can thank me for educating you on the old IMDB board about the Miller-Urey experiment. You were a believer in evolution then, or so you claimed, but actually you were an ill-informed moron, just as now. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 7:50:30 GMT
So you'll ignore them? Silly me of course you will. They were the first that I found. I didn't, and don't have unlimited time, Yes, anybody with sense will summarily ignore your two utterly worthless and totally dishonest Creationist sources. Here they are once more: www.harunyahya.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16470/miller-experiment-theand creation.com/miller-urey-revisited-oxidizing-atmosphere Harun Yahya is a crackpot Turkist Islamist who makes videos with female audience members with too much makeup. Here are some other videos he's produced: Putting an end to the Darwinist materialist education would give a large scaled result against PKK
Iran supports Syria and the PKK because they are communists
Turkey obliges Darwinist education but also wages a struggle against the PKK, which is a Darwinist terror organization.Your second source is from Creation Ministries International and the article you cited repeats all the falsehoods and misstatements from a buffoon named Jonathan Wells. Wells likes to "discredit" the Miller-Urey experiment by the lies typical of his ilk. Read the wikipedia article for Wells and/or read this: ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/icons/gishlick_icons1.pdf
By the way, you can thank me for educating you on the old IMDB board about the Miller-Urey experiment. You were a believer in evolution then, or so you claimed, but actually you were an ill-informed moron, just as now. I am still a believer in evolution you silly old racist. I should have known that any non-white source would bring you running to screech! Evolution yes, abiogenesis not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 8:01:52 GMT
You have in the past. I don't see the relevance of the research you cited to Pasteur at all.
No I haven't. I'm very careful NOT to use the word prove in relation to science. Proof is for maths, science is about accumulating empirical evidence. Pasteur's experiments are entirely irrelevant to the research on abiogenesis in the Szostak and lab and all the other lab's researching this subject. That was my point. You seemed and the other poster (gottaluvafriend) seemed to think Pasteur had somehow shown that abiogenesis is impossible. Well you have yet to convince me that Pasteur was wrong, or that your present day idols are saying anything different from what Pasteur disproved |
|
|
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Mar 7, 2017 9:00:39 GMT
No I haven't. I'm very careful NOT to use the word prove in relation to science. Proof is for maths, science is about accumulating empirical evidence. Pasteur's experiments are entirely irrelevant to the research on abiogenesis in the Szostak and lab and all the other lab's researching this subject. That was my point. You seemed and the other poster (gottaluvafriend) seemed to think Pasteur had somehow shown that abiogenesis is impossible. Well you have yet to convince me that Pasteur was wrong, or that your present day idols are saying anything different from what Pasteur disproved Where did I say Pasteur was wrong?  ?? It's not an either/or question, they can both be correct. His seminal experiments showed that modern micro organisms like Bacteria don't spontaneously generate each time they appear, they replicate from other Bacteria. This has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis theories about how replicating life appeared over ~ billion years from pre biotic molecules. Pasteur's work doesn't falsify current OOL research and current OOL research doesn't falsify Pasteur. They're unrelated. Pasteur ran his experiment over a few days, this was not an attempt to recreate prebiotic conditions and see if life appeared. |
|
?? It's not an either/or question, they can both be correct. His seminal experiments showed that modern micro organisms like Bacteria don't spontaneously generate each time they appear, they replicate from other Bacteria. This has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis theories about how replicating life appeared over ~ billion years from pre biotic molecules.