Blank

We'd read it Reh-kuhl. Like Amentep said, sounds like Dr. Jekyll. So I agree the name is poor.

I think you've been looking through your monocle eye a little too long.

I agree on that one, Cycloneman, since science is not philosophy or mathematics. Finding one counter-example does not change 'science'. Large and consistent amounts of evidence change theories and hypotheses, but if done properly, the scientific method and approach to discovering, observing, and documenting will remain the same regardless of the subject. Some of my quibble lies with people who make unworkable hypotheses (which are in the realm of science, as those ideas can guide future experiments) and try to make them sound more credible by simply having them under the label. This is funny, though, since I could say God is in the realm of science, but He's just an unworkable hypothesis. Or intelligent design, which is more or less an unworkable hypothesis, but I think if one used the idea to guide their research, it is definitely as in the realm of science as abiogenesis. It may simply be a matter of time to find the "right answer" as you would say.

I'm afraid you got your definition wrong. A fundamental part in the scientific method is that of hypothesizing - making more or less wild guesses in order to find a plausible explanation to an unexplained phenomenon. If those guesses contradict observed evidence, they are discarded. If not, one keeps guessing and gathering evidence and data, until either the guess becomes impossible or the phenomenon is explained satisfactorily. Science in general does not necessarily entail mathematical formality in reasoning, nor are its truths derived in the same way. While it's systematic too, it's much more flexible. That's reasonable. Thanks for your input.

I will answer this question with a brief explanation of probability, since it is a beautiful thing. Let's say you're playing poker, and you draw a hand. What are the odds of you getting that *particular* hand? Well, I'll tell you: one in two million five hundred ninety eight thousand nine hundred sixty. That's a 1/2598960 chance! Do that a few more times, and all of the sudden your outcome is less likely than those primitive nucleotides arranging in order! And you expect me to believe your theory of random drawing? Preposterous! I hope you learned something: anybody can make a particular event seem completely improbable by phrasing their words correctly. The arrangement of organic chemicals are not completely random. There were, most likely, a massive number of "attempts" made at creating the original cell before it succeeded. Add that to the fact that we don't even know how many "right answers" there are, and your statistic is just nonsense. Fair enough. I'll personally concede to you the statistical argument. I never took a class for it anyway. I think I was trying to paint the picture in my mind, but should have used something other than numbers. Here's the picture: We need a naturally occurring event to align our naturally occurring RNA in a form that causes it to self-replicate, grow, achieve homeostasis, respond to stimuli, have organization, metabolize, and adapt. For these processes we need a lot of that naturally occurring RNA (as it is our information for these life parameters). For RNA we need nucleotides. Nucleotides are made of a nitrogenous base, a ribose sugar, and a phosphate. All of these ingredients are needed, but the smallest of what could be made of our meager ingredients here would form an RNA virus, which still needs a host cell to propagate. This phenomenon has not been recorded by anyone in nature as we know it. So as I was trying to say, unless we build this scenario scientifically, abiogenesis seems to be an untestable hypothesis, let alone theory. But considering I know nothing about science, I might as well drop the issue. I started my topic to see what people thought about the origin of life, since spontaneous generation's discreditation would say it doesn't just happen from non-living things. I mistakenly and regrettably put "evolution" in the mix, which has less, but still some, to do with the question about abiogenesis.

Evolutionary theory is about the speciation process and the elements behind it (natural selection, mutation). The abiogenesis process is completely different. Spontaneous generation is a historical, now discredited, scientific theory about the creation of large-scale life like flies and aphids. Abiogenesis in modern theory is the creation of autocatalyzing primitive RNA molecules from surrounding chemicals. "Historical" indeed. Spontaneous generation had been posed since Aristotle, but was not discredited until Pasteur in 1861. Yet, microscopes able to see unicellular organisms had been available since Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (October 24, 1632 – August 30, 1723). So when you say "large-scale" life, you must intend "large-scale" to mean "on a cell to cell" level. Science can be defined as the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." So let us start by saying the "speciation process" is observed and documented, and thus scientific. Let us moreover say "natural selection" and "mutation" are both observable aspects of a thoroughly observed and documented "speciation." All is now observed, but I long to know what scientifically happened before that which we now observe and to that which we currently assent. If one attempts to retrace life's "evolution," one does come to abiogenesis. Yet, if spontaneous generation (historically plausible to mean something as small as unicellular) is just as absurd now as it was 3.5 billion years ago, what makes abiogenesis more scientific (observable and experimentable) than spontaneous generation? Cycloneman, you say "abiogenesis in modern theory is the creation of autocatalyzing primitive RNA molecules from surrounding chemicals." So assuming physical conditions (your "autocatalyzing" & "surrounding chemicals") at some point 3.5 billion years ago were perfect, let us sort through what scientifically-deemed "living" RNA molecules have been modernly recorded to form: RNA viruses, and the next-smallest recorded organism, the Nanoarchaeum, which is symbiotic. Logically, both must be thrown out in our consideration of the origin of life, since in the start there was no host cell to use as a resource for the RNA viruses, and no other organism to be symbiotic with for the Nanoarchaeum (this goes for any symbiotic or parasitic microorganism). Nanobacterium are claimed to be "living," but the National Academy of Sciences says, So even if we allow Nanoarchaeum, we're talking about perfect conditions setting up chemicals to make a set of 490,885 nucleotides in a specific order, and then a second time, since it is symbiotic. What are the statistics for that? Yet we can get smaller and smaller if we do not strictly define "life", and I cannot say it better than Dov Henis titles his article on this subject, Life is Wholistic Until Decomplexed to Energy. My point becomes this, something unobservable and that lacks experimental ability is not science as popularly defined (systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation). Abiogenesis presently falls under this unscientific category in my opinion. So does any early-history-of-life theory, unless something observable is presented, such as fossils or present-day experiments in which, from inorganic matter, a reproducing, adapting, metabolizing, growing, homeostatic, organized, and stimuli-responding life-form is created.

I thought it was cute, Walsy

Thanks for the discussion. I wanted to hear your thoughts. Lare Kikelli, it's funny you say,"Evolution is not a theory about the origins of life," when it is based on Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." I find them inextricably linked as one retraces species back to their beginning, but you could well argue that current evolutionary theory separates itself from "abiogenesis," as Strix said. I suppose my new question becomes, "What is the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation? If spontaneous generation is incredible, what makes abiogenesis less so?"

Is the "Theory of Evolution" simply a complicated form of spontaneous generation? (Spontaneous generation meaning the formation of living organisms from non-living substances) Discuss...

Vetoed.

I want one of those not-quite-instant message boxes at the bottom of the forum which one must refresh to have updated. And it should have a snapshot button to capture the wonders of the board which would take place there. And I want orange soda dispensed by the drinking fountains, but don't forget the diet orange soda option for our enamel-deficient friends.

Yes, George, but is your cell phone a dedicated server for 19,126 users?

I wrote this paper a few years ago. Recently looking through my files I found it and thought I'd share. It is slightly dated, but if you imagine back in 2005 when the whole GTA:San Andreas debacle transpired, this was more relevant. Enjoy.

You should get a second opinion from another oral surgeon. The "infection at this point" sounds bogus to me. If it is a big concern you could always ask for light antibiotics and eat some extra yogurt to replace the helpful bacteria that would get killed in your intestines by the antibiotics. I think you'll be worse off for waiting. But I have no idea what I'm talking about. So nevermind.

I remember when the guys hated Gabs, but I secretly didn't think anything was wrong with her, yet still couldn't tell her since I feared what the guys would say. Sorry Gabs.

Fallow ground. I think it had sucked the nutrients out of its regular posters and what was left continued to become closed topics.