Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 3, 2012 Exogenesis??? What that iz? Life coming from elsewhere. But where did that life come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Exogenesis??? What that iz? Life coming from elsewhere. But where did that life come from? From another universe? Or alien "seeding"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 3, 2012 EX tra terrestrials! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 EX tra terrestrials! But where did dem aleeunz cum frum??2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Videos as promised. The absolute simplest explanation of evolution. A step by step breakdown of abiogenesis. Admittedly this one takes a thorough understanding on bio-chemistry to really 'get', but the information is all there to learn. Keep in mind abiogenesis happens ALL THE TIME at deep sea hydrothermal vents which are surrounded by miles of cold lifeless ocean. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 3, 2012 or maybe through some mysterious tunnel from another universe where life always existed? riding on a meteor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I'll stick with abio tyvfm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Is Abiogenesis not part of Evolution. Could Evolution exist without it? Didn't think so. Actually, it could. You could believe in a God who created the first prokaryotes for the purpose of evolution to continue the process. Usually abiogenesis kind of goes hand-in-hand with evolution because they're connect, origin to continuation, but abiogenesis is really in the field of biochemistry while evolution is under physical anthropology. So they're in different scientific fields and require different tools to understand and test. The big difference is that abiogenesis explains how inorganic matter became organic, while evolution explains how organic matter changes over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Buying into evolution will not make or break you. I wouldnt worry too much about it. Without evolution, you need to answer the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? You can't have a chicken that hasn't hatched from an egg. Likewise, you need a chicken to lay the egg. Without evolution, either the chicken never existed or it has always existed since before the universe began. He doesn't believe in a magical sky-potter like you do, so that would be the logical conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Buying into evolution will not make or break you. I wouldnt worry too much about it. Without evolution, you need to answer the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? You can't have a chicken that hasn't hatched from an egg. Likewise, you need a chicken to lay the egg. Without evolution, either the chicken never existed or it has always existed since before the universe began. He doesn't believe in a magical sky-potter like you do, so that would be the logical conclusion. I posted a vid on abiogenesis a while back. It suggested that there is a likelihood that RNA can naturally develop given the right combo of conditions and chemical soup. Life may in fact be quite common and not a craps shoot at all. http://www.ex-christ...hl__abiogenesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 EX tra terrestrials! But where did dem aleeunz cum frum??2? Has nothing to do with aliens actually. The fact that organic matter can survive space and be transplanted, unintentionally, elswhere and contribute to the start of the process, makes exogenesis a very nice option for me personally. Panspermia seems the most likely to me, but that's through my own reading the pros and cons of abiogenesis. I don't think it was directed panspermia (which is what you are saying about aliens, McDaddy), though. The idea of a being randomly getting his rocks off on random rocks to purposely hit our planet and create us is a little too much for me to handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 What that iz? From another universe? Or alien "seeding"? In reality, it would be organic matter from another universe. Alien seeding? Hell no. That is just as arrogant as people worshiping a deity. It feeds in to the whole "we are special" neurosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Exogenesis??? What that iz? Life coming from elsewhere. But where did that life come from? It is not necessarily life. Come on now. You've read up on this. Easily just basic components of matter, some that could "evolve" into life if mixed with the right goop...like our own planet had back in the day before our magnetic poles did a better job of protecting us from flying rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Exogenesis??? What that iz? I know what the word means, but not in relation to the origin of life. http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/panspermia.htm <----For the smart ass little kid in you that might not like to read enough, here is the 5th grade version of panspermia. If that got you asking yourself more questions, go here (There are NOT videos and pictures and stuff...but it isn't long winded...) --->http://www.panspermia.org/oseti.htm What genuinely kills me about the rejection of panspermia is all the assumptions that hardcore evolutionists make against it. Radiation can kill bacteria... Well that was discovered to NOT be true. Another is the notion that even though other forms or building blocks for life make it here, it wouldn't survive. They never really say why, and frankly, there are many many other planets with water, so I doubt foreign matter couldn't hack it here. I mean, really, you would think one could see how exogenesis and evolution work hand in hand. It's basic chemistry. Some of the mix ups worked, some didn't. For Christ's sake, it's not like only ONE type of organic matter can be found floating in space. It's pure ego in the science community that keeps them from working together. I think origin of life goes like this: Big Bang Shit pulls together and starts forming planets, galaxies, etc. Some shit that pulled together fell apart eventually (super novas, asteroids, etc) We get our shit smacked around for a number of millions of years because our magnetic poles aren't protecting us enough yet. Trash from the comets, asteroids and meteor showers makes it to our sloppy mess of a world. Some shit mixed in with what we had laying around. Some made some sweet muffins, others didn't. Some of the sweet muffins got eaten right away, others managed to survive long enough to develop some physical survival camouflage. And it just keeps going from there. I know it's very basic, but it stands to reason. Shit, we could have had some life already starting here from abiogenesis that was starting to die out from the harsh bombardments we were getting, and they mixed in with the foreign materials as well. Either way, evolution is in there. How hard is this? I don't get why it is so impossible to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I'm gonna try tackling this from another angle in the hope that it will help. The creation story cannot work verbatim as documented. The idea that a single pair are able to spawn a generation that will spawn another generation simply cannot work w/o appealing to magic. We do not even have to get into the nitty gritties of genetics to know that this cannot work. there is a reason why laws exist to prevent you pairing with a sibling or even why there seems or should to be a non attraction to siblings. When it comes to cousins that unattraction diminishes - I know, I have a cousin who at 56 is still hawt and I would do her as would many of my male cousins. The reason the gene pool is not the same. There has to be more sources from origins to parenting pairs so that offspring have a deeper genetic pool to choose from. So the creation accounts would need multiple Adam and Eves. That is just how genetics work and back in the day when this was penned, they did not know what we know now. Usually this is in the order of 50+ mating pairs as below that the gene pool dilutes and you start to get weird shit happening. The less pairs there are, the higher or better the mortality rate must be. Even pairing cousins tend to spawn defective offspring. These are the conundrums creationists find themselves confronting and then come up with excuses of oh back then their gene pools were purer hence siblings could mate. Genetics do not have a purity factor. What happens is that the genes are to similar and hence the process of passing on better genes and ones that will fall into the survival of the fittest fails, bad genes will just get worse and worse in consecutive generations if inbreeding is sustained. So with creationism out the way as being unsustainable, you now have to find a model that actually works. Multiplying the pairing adults to numbers that would make a deeper gene pool sorts out half the problem but then you start working backwards to origins and THIS is where I have issues. I already posited the idea of multiple origins from an abiogenesis POV to explain the diversity in races yet no one seemed to like that concept for some reason. It really does not matter how far back you move in time, you are always faced with the gene pool thingy. That of course does not take into account external factors that cause mutations. It is one of those areas of discussion where I seriously doubt anyone has a real answer and hence the many competing theories. With the advent of the discovery of DNA which was not long ago, we have been able to apply that knowledge in the genome project and that has almost put the stamp of approval on the ToE even though I do not fully embrace all of their conclusions. the problem is that we tend to think in linear concepts and the ToE is definately a lot more complex with oodles of twists and branches. There are still many missing pieces to the puzzle as we simply do not have the luxury of finding a fossil for every generation. Thus, we use a lot of predictive models and then test that and adapt if the prediction was wrong. These days the predictions are pretty damn close. Coming from a simplistic creation POV which does not delve into the intricacies of DNA and genomes, there is no equivalent science did it like the godunnit scenario. That is probably what most folk battle with. Needless to say, there is no need to beat yourself up about it, the only time I ever think about it is on discussions like these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Aaaaaarrgggggghhh Now you guys went and made me THINK dammit! Then i had to go look shit up! Okay.. it's complicated (understatement of the year! ) • Evolution = what life has done since 'dead' matter became 'live' matter (most likely a natural chemical process/progress- dead and alive are relative terms and the demarcation is fuzzy in biochemistry. Example: Viruses) Evolution is a fact. • Abiogenesis = HOW matter became 'alive', or self-replicating. (too simple, I know... bear with me) This becomes closer to being proven all the time. We are very close to reproducing this from what I've read. • Big Bang Theory = HOW the universe has acted since the beginning of the expansion (sort of an evolutionary theory for the universe) Best theory we have... and the evidence we have so far supports it. The universe IS expanding (fact)... and it is shown that it has changed from simpler to more complex over time (fact)... we know this because the farther we look the farther back in time we see and galaxies and such that are farther away are in earlier stages of evolving. • Cosmology = How and where the universe started, 'where' being a term that doesn't really fit...because space and time only existed after the expansion...this is the hypotheses of the origin of time, energy, matter, and space. THIS is where it gets weird... and this is also where empirical science and philosophy kind of cross over. There are several speculations/hypotheses for this... which bring us to concepts like gravitational singularities, brane theories, M-Theory, etc... which from what I've read test the limits of even our greatest minds. Mathematics and classical physics break down in some of these areas... and even in quantum mechanics it's difficult to come up with workable solutions. BUT, talented and visionary people are working on it and the theories are progressing all the time. I find it fascinating that, so far, these theories do not eliminate the possibility of a 'god', or first cause - without the need for the 'supernatural'. But, if the singularity concept is correct then we are INSIDE of it... whatever that may be. Maybe the deists and pantheists are right!?. OR if M-theory is right then there are multiple universes and we are just one of many.. like bubbles forming in the bottom of a boiling pot of water, or soap bubbles. There are other ideas being worked on... and unless you are a cosmologist or quantum physicist, understanding these things is VERY hard. High order theoretical mathematics. Some of the theories speculate on a 'beginning', some suggest an eternal existence (like the Big Crunch and M-Theory models) In quantum physics particles 'pop' in and out of the universe all the time..(always in pairs) we don't know if they 'come' from somewhere else or if it is just a phenomena of the universe. Stephen Hawking suggested that if there are black holes then there may be white holes as well.. instead of 'eating' information (matter) they may 'vomit' information. Some people have speculated that the origin of the big bang was a white hole. (which would suggest that the information is eternal, or at least came from somewhere else-another universe perhaps). We are very close to developing quantum computers... i think it will be fascinating to see what comes out of that when we apply them to these questions. The problem with this area is testing and verifying these theories.. so far it's purely mathematical, and there is no way to test them out - and this is where i think it becomes less science and more philosophy... at this time anyway. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 LifeCycle, listen, evolution is a fact of terrestrial biology, but it is a relatively poorly understood fact. And unfortunately the explanatory power of evolution has been vastly overstated and oversold. If you can't embrace it then don't. If you wish to better understand life, then perhaps you could concentrate instead on understanding physiology, which is sort of like the complement of evolution in biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I think that given the distances between stars, plus the kind of collision required to knock a piece of rock not only out of a planet's gravity well, but also the gravity well of the star that it orbits, interstellar panspermia is very, very, very unlikely. If a number of stars form very close together in a nebula, there might be some exchange of matter between the developing systems, but once the distances between the stars increases, the possibility of something being tossed from one system to another goes down substantially. However, I think it is highly likely that the basics of life could have started in comets within our own solar system, which were then deposited on Earth when the comets struck it early in its history. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Buying into evolution will not make or break you. I wouldnt worry too much about it. Without evolution, you need to answer the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? You can't have a chicken that hasn't hatched from an egg. Likewise, you need a chicken to lay the egg. Without evolution, either the chicken never existed or it has always existed since before the universe began. He doesn't believe in a magical sky-potter like you do, so that would be the logical conclusion. I posted a vid on abiogenesis a while back. It suggested that there is a likelihood that RNA can naturally develop given the right combo of conditions and chemical soup. Life may in fact be quite common and not a craps shoot at all. http://www.ex-christ...hl__abiogenesis I'm one who also believes that its quite common. I don't think it can be rare given what we know. All the essential elements tend to be among the most common. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon,etc.... I was responding to the christian, pointing out how rediculous the idea of not having evolution was, it even sounds worse without a God! (and that says something). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I think that given the distances between stars, plus the kind of collision required to knock a piece of rock not only out of a planet's gravity well, but also the gravity well of the star that it orbits, interstellar panspermia is very, very, very unlikely. If a number of stars form very close together in a nebula, there might be some exchange of matter between the developing systems, but once the distances between the stars increases, the possibility of something being tossed from one system to another goes down substantially. However, I think it is highly likely that the basics of life could have started in comets within our own solar system, which were then deposited on Earth when the comets struck it early in its history. Nice to see someone besides myself understands panspermia isnt only about aliens and distant galaxies. :0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wndwalkr99 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 LifeCycle, listen, evolution is a fact of terrestrial biology, but it is a relatively poorly understood fact. And unfortunately the explanatory power of evolution has been vastly overstated and oversold. If you can't embrace it then don't. If you wish to better understand life, then perhaps you could concentrate instead on understanding physiology, which is sort of like the complement of evolution in biology. That is incorrect. Point number one: "evolution" has zero explanatory power; it does not seek to explain any more than gravity does. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, might have been what you were trying to refer to, and in regards to that, the mechanisms of evolution are exceptionally well understood and draw support from dozens of scientific disciplines. It is a legitimate theory in the scientific sense and holds predictive power as well as explanatory power. Physiology and biology are examples of these, and even those are overarching terms in themselves. They encompass neurology, osteology, comparative physiology, developmental physiology, morbid physiology, skeletal physiology, cellular physiology, fetology, genetics, and many more, across all species: animalae, plantae, fungi, monera, and protista. They are supported by disciplines such as physical chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, atomic chemistry, theoretical chemistry, and computational chemistry, and they are backbones to more specific disciplines such as paleontology, paleoanthropology, paleobotony, paleophytology, and paleopathology- those in turn also supported by geology, marine biology, hydrology, seismology, ecology, meteorology, oceanology, archaeology, and climatology - to name just a few. This is not some fly-by-night, made up "theory" in the colloquial sense. It is mindbogglingly well-supported, and to understand the entirely of it, one must be at least somewhat educated in a large variety of scientific disciplines. On the other hand, to "believe" that it is not well-supported does not require you to know anything about anything - and, the less you know, the more able you will be to hold on to that belief. OP, if you don't care to learn about it, then don't, but as noted before, you are not qualified to "believe" or "disbelieve". Edited for minor typo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Nice to see someone besides myself understands panspermia isnt only about aliens and distant galaxies. :0) I've actually argued with a woo about panspermia, but the woo in question thought that life on earth could only have come from other star systems, because life on Earth supposedly appeared too quickly and in too much complexity to be from here originally. Nevermind that he's been told that we're basically talking about a petri dish in which countless "experiments" were being run simultaneously in every body of water on the planet, making the appearance of life practically inevitable. Most other people I've seen discuss the subject (as in, actual scientists) agree that the basics of life forming in comets isn't terribly far-fetched; after all, you have most of the right chemistry, so combined with an energy source, you should get at least some of the building blocks of life going. The idea of a rock being blown off of Mars or Venus and finding its way to Earth is also not only plausible, but confirmed (at least with Martian meteors found in Antarctica. I don't know if we've actually found any rocks from Venus; it's still a possibility, just a much less likely one due to Venus' much larger gravity well and thick atmosphere, and the fact that any rocks blown off would be going "uphill" out of the Sun's gravity well to get to Earth). However, even this idea acknowledges that abiogenesis happened somewhere in the solar system as a result of natural processes, whereas the idea of interstellar panspermia is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible. Even if interstellar panspermia is plausible, it's little more than a punt, because abiogenesis had to happen somewhere for the panspermia to get started in the first place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMandeville Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 My god this is depressing. LifeCycle, you haven't the slightest idea as to how evolution works. You can't possibly dismiss the idea when you don't understand it. Your grasp of the subject is about as feeble as that of the Jehovah's Witness who came to my door last week. Read, read, and read some more. There is nothing to believe; only that which can be understood and that which can be pondered. What you're doing is insulting and lazy, and you should be embarrassed to ask all of us here to wash away your concerns and ignorance regarding evolution when the information you seek is easily found. Your supposed skepticism is nothing more than a lack of information and conceptual knowledge. No one is going to hand you a magic package of "understanding" or an epiphany as often offered through religion. This knowledge is not esoteric, nor is it available only through pre-approved channels and/or personnel; you must do the work yourself. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Buying into evolution will not make or break you. I wouldnt worry too much about it. Without evolution, you need to answer the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? You can't have a chicken that hasn't hatched from an egg. Likewise, you need a chicken to lay the egg. Without evolution, either the chicken never existed or it has always existed since before the universe began. He doesn't believe in a magical sky-potter like you do, so that would be the logical conclusion. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need to answer the question about the chicken or the egg. :-) I'm not saying I don't agree with evolution either. It makes sense to me. It's even quite fascinating and I might need to read a book or visit a website on it (got any favorites?). What I am saying is that, over the years evolution hasn't really had an impact in my life personally. Neither creation nor evolution has had much of an impact on me that I'm aware of. Prove me wrong. I bet you can. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 That is incorrect. Wndwalkr let's get right to it. Do you believe that if our understanding of evolution was comprehensive, then it would explain all that there is to know about organisms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts