Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viviane

  the science in his op actually supports vidqun's view according to Lane, Mitchell, Russell and Martin although perhaps not his worldview but vidqun's worldview is a matter of his own private way of imagining how life started particularly if we allow for metaphor in theistic and scientific descriptions.

  So, and I really want to make sure you are clear on this, you are saying the science in Cofty's OP supports the notion that cells are animated by a force called life

  Is that correct? If not, please clarify what you mean specifically. If that is correct, then I'll need the exact quote you believe supports that notion and specifically what to look for in the work of Lane, Mitchell, Russell and Martin, their peer reviewed research where they did falsifiable and repeatable experiments show there is a force called life.

  BTW, in this case Vidquin's worldview is irrelevant to reality. He is free to believe whatever he wishes, but that doesn't make it reality.
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  here let me give you some science - life is continuous chemical reaction according to Martin. the ancients devised the term ether (from which we get the word ethereal) to suggest burning air. seems like there were not far off. I guess you and cofty will now do your usual jumping through hoops but I'm have no time for that

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158116/
  

  Life is a chemical reaction, not stirred organic soup

  The very familiar concept that life arose from some kind of organic soup is 80 years old [27-29] and had best be abandoned altogether. The reason is that life is not about the spatial reorganization of preexisting components, it is a continuous chemical reaction, an energy-releasing reaction, and a far-from-equilibrium process. The proposal that life arose through the self-organisation of preformed constituents in a pond or an ice-pore containing some kind of preformed prebiotic broth can be rejected with a simple thought experiment: If we were to take a living organism and homogenize it so as to destroy the cellular structure but leave the molecules intact, then put that perfect organic soup into a container and wait for any amount of time, would any form of life ever arise from it de novo? The answer is no, and the reason is because the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen in that soup is at equilibrium: it has virtually no redox potential to react further so as to provide electron transfers and chemical energy that are the currency and fabric of life [30-32
• 

  Viviane

  here let me give you some science - life is continuous chemical reaction according to Martin. the ancients devised the term ether (from which we get the word ethereal) to suggest burning air. seems like there were not far off. I guess you and cofty will now do your usual jumping through hoops but I'm have no time for that

  Science is always good. That snippet you posted has nothing to do with evidence of a force called life, however.

  Let's get back to your claim. Are you claiming Cofty posted some science in his OP that support the notion that there is a force called life and that Martin's peer reviewed works contain objective, repeatable and falsifiable experiments showing this force?

  If so, I'll need the quote from the OP showing what Cofty posted and the research relevant to this.
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  viv, I'm picking up on vidiqun's comments, so you will need to see what he said. You will also so need to, as I have already said, to keep in mind that I am making my claims in the spirit of metaphor and that cofty can laugh about this. otherwise forget it.

  viv, also you said

  If so, I'll need the quote from the OP showing what Cofty posted and the research relevant to this.
  

  yes - you have some work to do then
• 

  The Rebel

  Thanks Viv.

  Viviane :-" In science, a theory is the current best explanation supported by a body of evidence, experiment observation and it is falsiable"

  So to clarify are you saying that when science proposes a theory, then one should try ones best to disprove it?

  Viviane " All questions are not equal. Questions based on misunderstanding.....

  Has history not taught as that most scientific theories are not quite right? If so then they are based on misunderstanding

  Vivianne:- "and dishonesty, particularly when the questioner has been corrected multiple times and still persists in the question"

  Noted. However isn't that an assumption to assume a poster is being dishonest even if they have been corrected many times and still persist in the question. I am not saying it's an incorrect assumption, but I am sure many current scientific theories are a result of a scientist who refused to accept being corrected many times and persisted in his theory.

  p.s I am confused how on content Viviane got a dislike on her previous reply to mine.
• 

  prologos

  Ruby456: "--here let me give you some science - life is continuous chemical reaction

  A chemical reaction that is contagious and has been going on for ~4 billion years, and has succeeded to transform itself into the most convoluted structures allowed by the niches it moved into. It has resisted replication since the days of Louis Pasteur. Cofty's well defined questions are really an invitation to speculate on the reaction of believers to an event that has not happened yet, an emperor straw man that *** so far has no cloths, or?

  *** I was tempted to change that to "who" has no cloth, but that would be giving life, oxidisation to inert straw, previously alive. producing even more "hot air" in the process.

  
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  prologos, yes that is what I have been thinking re cofty's well defined questions and his reactions are every bit as combustible as chemical reactions
  
• 

  prologos

  Ruby: " his reactions are every bit as combustible as chemical reactions

  I was not singling out cofty at all, in my quick, not to well thought out comment, I just can not follow the fine points made by most posters in these discussions. and come to think of it, --we were looking for and thriving on hot air, thermals in our sailplane flying days. that' is how you got a "high".
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  prologos I know you were not but I am - after all this is his thread

  edit: goodness - trying to read this thread and constantly distracted by these lovely paintings that keep being chucked at me below
• 

  prologos

  Ruby: :--here let me give you some science - life is continuous chemical reaction

  To follow my "Pasteur" comment, It appears that non-living matter, even if organic, seems to be almost as immunized to resist self-starting the life-chemical-reaction, or to be easily prodded into firing up by catalysts.