Life of Cells -- Poll

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by JFS321, Nov 2, 2005.

?

Are you a mechanist or a vitalist?

  1. Mechanist

    14 vote(s)
    63.6%
  2. Vitalist

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  3. No opinion

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Don't understand the question

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  1. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Believing in a guiding force or a god or intelligent design to account for the creation of life or cells is viewed as not being scientific: it is a neocreationist pseudoscience or junk science. This is a fact, by definition (Wikipedia).

    Evolution is determined by the accumulation of chance random mutations over a longterm process involving millions of years, and depends on if these mutations lead to traits within a population of a species that make it more apt to survive in its changing environment.

    If mutations are chance random events, then why would anyone want to postulate a "guiding" conscious force? Seems like a contradiction here to me: guiding vs. random?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life first arose from inanimate matter. The ToE deals with how life has changed once it arose.<P>
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    No, it doesn’t logically follow that we should necessarily be able to do that. As it happens, it is highly unlikely we will ever be able to do that.

    Why? Because this planet was a fundamentally different place 4bya than it is today. Geologists and planetary scientists still argue about the precise composition of the atmosphere at that time, and whether certain starting materials were present. Biologists argue as to whether life arose on the surface or at hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor or in subterranean pockets, and they argue about the timescales involved and whether seeding of biological molecules from comets played a role.

    We don’t know all these answers so we cannot possibly simulate the precise conditions and create life. But we can chip away at the problem one piece at a time. We can simulate conditions using what information we have and produce chemical reactions that look like they fit into existing models. We can look at life today and reverse engineer to determine how various pre-cellular molecular systems arose. Here is just one of the endless examples.....

    <blockquote>A ribozyme for the aldol reaction.
    Fusz et al.
    Chem Biol. 2005 Aug;12(8):941-50.

    Directed in vitro evolution can create RNA catalysts for a variety of organic reactions, supporting the "RNA world" hypothesis, which proposes that metabolic transformations in early life were catalyzed by RNA molecules rather than proteins. Among the most fundamental carbon-carbon bond-forming reactions in nature is the aldol reaction, mainly catalyzed by aldolases that utilize either an enamine mechanism (class I) or a Zn(2+) cofactor (class II). We report on isolation of a Zn(2+)-dependent ribozyme that catalyzes an aldol reaction at its own modified 5' end with a 4300-fold rate enhancement over the uncatalyzed background reaction. The ribozyme can also act as an intermolecular catalyst that transfers a biotinylated benzaldehyde derivative to the aldol donor substrate, coupled to an external hexameric RNA oligonucleotide, supporting the existence of RNA-originated biosynthetic pathways for metabolic sugar precursors and other biomolecules.</blockquote>So, hopefully you can see that all the little pieces of evidence are put together to form various theories that life arose from inanimate matter and theories about the mechanisms behind the transformation. Those theories can then be used to predict molecule behaviour and hitherto undiscovered aspects of cellular function.

    That’s science.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    <P>
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Yes it does! Because you're touching at the boundary where you consider there is a transition from non-life to life, and that is also the subject of evolution.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i went to the website mentioned in one of alphawolf's posts and no less than 3 times it refered to itself as quote "theory of common descent"
     
  9. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Leftovers from our good old friend Darwin i'll bet. I gues it refers to the notion of common descent as opposed to created separately.

    Although in the world of viruses the theory has been offered that different lineages arose separately. But I don't think it has become very popular.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't know what to think. and i thought racism was alive and well. it seems evolution and creationism has it beat.
     
  11. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    I get the impression that you’re stressed about not knowing. There is no need for angst! As I see it you are either a religious person who believes that some sort of higher power created life, or you are a scientific person who believes that life arose from purely natural origins.

    If you are the former then you already have all the absolute answers to the fundamental questions, but you have to take it all on faith as there is no “proof” that a higher power exits. Religion is faith. If you are the latter then you have to accept that science cannot provide all the answers. With respect to abiogenesis, scientists have to shrug their shoulders and say “We just don’t precisely know how it happened….yet.” But just because science cannot explain something does not mean we jump to a supernatural cause as the explanation. That’s not science. We merely conclude that we have not yet found the naturalistic explanation, and we keep looking. If a person cannot cope with that sort of uncertainty, then they won't make a very good scientist.

    (At least, that's my take on it.)<P>
     
  12. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Theory of common descent. There have been so many discoveries during the last few centuries that happened simultaneously (calculus, airplanes, probably "the wheel") that I should think origins occurred simultaneously during the same time in history too, i.e., under the right environmental conditions - multiple lineages. Is there such a thing as coincidence.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    hercules
    the creationists want me to take it on faith, the scientists want me to take it on faith. what if there were no begining? what if the universe is truely infinite in both directions, no begining no end? what if we wre somehow a function of time? after all do we really know the nature of time? when time ends so do we, when we end so does time. that would be the cats meow, both theories wrong and everybody is looking in the wrong direction.
     
  14. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    You can examine all evidence pointing to evolution for yourself. No need to take it 'on faith'.
     
  15. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    who ever said that evolution cant coinside with higher force,

    think about it properly, just because evolution is true it dosent mean that you cant be a vitalism mechanist droid thing combined does it? couldent god have used evolution to pass the time? so he dosent have to see the same boring shit everyday, that would explain the sabertooth tiger, those teeth were just for show and you know it, what good did they serve it couldent even chew and bite down porperly,


    peace,
     
  16. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Well I'll tell you this. The creationists are wrong because God is dead! There was no beginning and there will be no end, so there is no "cats meow." You're being influenced in the wrong direction. Read the facts. Prove it for yourself. But don't just "blindly" believe in "faith" just because that's what others say.
     
  17. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    people have to much ego i think personally,

    dont think humans are better than other life forms, the ting is when speaking about "god" or a higher force, you shoudl really throw all relligious books and knowledge out the window, the books were written by man not god, therefore are flawed,


    god or higher force/forces should be looked at scientificly not religiously, fuck religion its just a way to make money and keep people on leashes,

    creationists should stop thinking we are super special, we are just animals/life forms like everything else, and stop thinking evolution rules out a god because it dosent, it just rules out that bible shit,

    mechanists (or whatever the term is)
    should also stop thinking that evolution rules out a higher existance or force wich is limitless, evolution again just rules out the bible wich is just a story book with morals (wierd ones), i personally am a vitalist i believe we all have life energy in us, i dont know anything about afterlife, im usure, i know nothing of god, im unsure, but i do believe we are more than just a machine, i also believe animals are less than a machine, (even an ant) i believe we are all children of the earth itself (wich is true) the earth created us, every life form on this earth is needed for its uphold, we are all living parts of te earth, witht he same energies running through us, (Qi the basis of how we hold together as a functional system)

    blah blah etc etc


    i forgot what else i had to say so yeah,,,,,, it was something good....... the meaning of life i think,


    peace,
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    correct me if i am wrong, if you can not prove something false then it must be considered no matter how ridiculous it might seem.
    creationism has not been proven false.
    you can't just throw it out the window.
    if you can't prove something true then it is a theory.
    creationism has not been proven true.
    the biggest problem i have with science is this:
    some years back a method known as c14 dating was discovered that allowed dating of ancient objects. some bright scientist said hey we can use this method to date the age of the universe, so they break out all their do-dads and come up with a figure of 4.5 billion years, later it was discovered that their iron clad dating method was in error not by a measly 1 or 2 or even 10 percent but by a whopping 100 percent, the figure of 4.5 billion years was published as the gospel then they say oops.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    in one of hercules rocefellers posts he mentions abiogenisis, is that the term science uses to define "life from the elements"?
    and evolution and abiogenisis are two different things right? evolution meaning change over time. if that is the case then i have no doubt about evolution, it's a fact. this abiogenisis is the real crux of the problem, and scientists will say we have no idea how. and the debate rages.
     
  20. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    yes i also have a big problem with science issuing "facts" to the world, if you were to actualy look at science as a whole, it is a large % theory,
    things that are taught in school arent even proven to be 100% true but we still teach the youth what we think is correct with modern day tech, look at it this way, in 500 year jumps, howmuch the world progresses, and we always find out our ancestors were wrong about things, no doubt in 500 years time they will look back and say,

    "wow they really used to think that back in the year 2005? thats crazy man giggle giggle"

    how many of you were taught about the big bang in school? i know its called the big bang theory but if thats the only theory you teach them at an early age what are they going to believe?, just liek if you tella child god created you they will believe it, we should not put young minds in such a general box to think in, we should also teach theory/philosophy to young children, and not just shove them scientific "fact" and thats the end of that,

    you get what im saying?


    peace.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the words "big bang theory" was coined by an astronomer (hubble i believe) as a sarcastic joke.
    i have no problem with evolution being taught in our schools, the problem is it doesn't say it does not expain how we got here in the first place (abiogenisis) and it should be stated that abiogenisis and evolution are two different things.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2005
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it isn't evolution i am concerned about. it's this abiogenesis. but there is also the bigger problem of religion and society. if religion is not true then what explains why religion is so universal. when we deal with society we must be carefull that we do not remove something that society desperately needs. that statement alone probably accounts for why the issue has become politicised. you must admit religion makes a lot of sense from a social point of veiw.
     
  23. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    Easy- many things.
    One, humans are curious. They want to know what makes the sun come up every morning, and go down every night. People are also stupid. Myths start up, people say they know what causes it, etc. and people start to believe it.
    Two, humans try to convert other people. Just look at the crusades and the inquisition and all that... those people who didn't believe got either converted or killed. Seeing how humans don't want to be killed, many converted and started teaching thier children that. Those children taught THEIR children, etc.
    Three, there's evidence for a "god gene".
    wrong. If you CAN prove it true then it is a theory. Just like gravity, the fact that the earth orbits around the sun, the structure and dynamics of atoms, etc.
    Creationism has nothing, i repeat NOTHING scientific about it.
    yes it has. did you know that 99% of all organisms that have ever lived in this earth (fossils) are extinct? there is no way those many organisms could have lived in the same earth at one time. Also.... say you find an aquatic fossil in the desert (many like that are found... and tropical plants in antarctica, etc.)... if everything was created at the same time, there is no way that could be possible.
    You have NO idea what you're talking about. I don't even know what to say or where to start... that's just 100000% wrong. Nobody tried to date the universe with C14, the universe is 14? 15? billion years, not 4.5, etc. nothing you said there has any shred of truth.
    first off, you're using the wrong definition for theory... well, you mean in the common parlance but you're right it's mostly SCIENTIFIC theory aka fact.
    YOU should be the one to actually look at science as a whole.
     

Share This Page