Jobar

DNAUnion, take any problem you have with pz to the Bugs & Complaints forum.

Thanatoast, I did try to explain to the woman that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate areas of knowledge, and that since abiogenesis took place many billions of years ago and evolution is taking place as we speak, we know vastly more about evolution than about abiogenesis.

However, as all of us here are well aware, telling a creationist something and getting them to actually *understand* it are also two entirely different things!

Ah, I might mention that although I see this lady on a fairly regular basis- she lives not too far from my parents- she has not spoken to me on the subject since. I think she is frightened that I might teach her something she does not want to know.

Fiach

Likely you made her THINK. That is pretty scary to a long time fundy. That is why some react with anger, some just run away, and a rare few THINK more and like Dan Barker (Losing Faith in Faith, FFRF.) She just ran away for now. But she may yet start thinking again.

Fiach

Thanatoast

Thanks for clarifying that, Jobar. Appologies are in order if I took the thread too far off track from your intended purposes of inquiry regarding abiogenesis.

While it is true that evolution and abiogenesis are technically separate fields of knowledge, as you mentioned, they are often combined to form a general model of the origin and development of life on earth. This is especially true for us non-theists. Together with the findings of other sciences, such as cosmology, they constitute our version of the "creation story". Unlike others that have cropped up among our species, this one is based upon a vast and growing amount of testable evidence.

Bearing in mind this type of connection between evolution and abiogenesis, a concern should be raised. Many of us are well aware of the tactics employed by creationist propagandists. They include the feeble attempt to raise doubts concerning the legitimacy of evolution among their target audience by emphasizing the contention between evolutionary biologists over the mechanisms of evolution. The most famous example would be the debate between classical Darwinian natural selection and punctuated equilibrium. Despite the obvious error in these types of arguments, they continue to be utilized.

The problem with explaining the current research into abiogenesis to a creationist is that is a field that has a great deal of contention of its own. For a creationist who is swayed by those who would say "evolution didn't happen; even the scientists investigating it can't agree on how it happened" would in all likelyhood consider the disagreements and general holes in knowledge within the field of abiogenesis research to be evidence against the possibility that it occured.

It is my worry that this awareness of another scientific field with heated debates concerning its mechanisms, and its connection to evolution within the non-theist's "creation story" paradigm, could lead to a stalwart creationist to be even more convinced than ever that evolution is false. Granted, I'm not saying you should not discuss abiogenesis with a creationist at all, merely that such a problem could happen, and be prepared to handle it

Hope this made sense.

DNAunion

DNAunion: Sure everybody, go ahead. Just be sure to read the whole thread.

DNAunion: It's pretty much a legitimate question, though, isn't it?

As far lampooning Lucaspa’s claims, this, from http://www.christianforums.com/threads/26758.html, is better.

***********************************

DNAunion: I have created life, and it was simple!!

The living cells I created consist of organic molecules contained within a selectively permeable membrane, with the single unit of life displaying growth, reproduction – with the inheritance of traits, metabolism, response to external stimuli, electrical activity, and both intercellular and intracellular communication. Furthermore, the conditions required to create this new form of life are prebiotically plausible. These features make my created life form far more astounding that Sidney Fox’s.

I will explain each of the above characteristics, but first, I will present the protocol followed. I went into my back yard, dug a dozen holes, then kept pouring water into one of the holes. Lo and behold, I created honest-to-goodness living cells.

Organic molecules
The living cells I created consist of the organic molecule H2O, or water. Water is an organic molecule because it can be considered as formaldehyde – CH2O, a sugar - but with the carbon atom removed.

Selectively permeable membrane
I placed a piece of Styrofoam onto the surface-tension membranes of several living cells and noticed that the Styrofoam was prevented from entering into the interior of the cells. I repeated the experiment using a rock, and, surprisingly, it was admitted into the cells’ cytoplasm. Thus, the membrane that surrounds each cell is selectively permeable.

Growth
As more water was poured into the single cell, the water level rose – that is, the amount of organic material contained within the cell – it’s cytoplasm – increased. The increase in the intracellular contents expanded the volume enclosed by the selectively permeable membrane. Thus, my life forms undergo growth.

Reproduction
I found that there was a limit to how much an individual cell could grow. Once it reached that threshold, the cell released fluid gametes that, when reaching an empty hole, spawned a new living cell. By pouring water in only one hole, the parent hole, a total of 11 offspring were produced.

Inheritance of traits
I next placed blue food coloring into the parent cell and noticed that all of that cell’s offspring were also blue, just like their parent. Thus, in my new life forms traits are faithfully passed on from generation to generation.

Metabolism
Experiments have shown that water – the organic molecules of my living cells – can cleave the terminal phosphate groups from ATP, thereby liberating free energy. Since my organic molecules participate in one of the most universal metabolic activities – cleaving terminal phosphate groups of ATP to release free energy – my living cells carry out metabolism.

Response to external stimuli
When I threw a rock at one of the living cells, upon contact, its internal organic constituents rearranged in order to compensate for the external stimulus. Furthermore, when I exposed the living cells to heat, their cytoplasmic constituents underwent a phase change that resulted in a reduction of the cell’s volume: again, a response to an external stimulus.

Electrical activity
Being composed of the organic compound water, my living cells will conduct electrical impulses through their cytoplasm.

Intracellular communication
An electrical signal generated in one region of the cell can be detected in a distant region of that same cell, thus showing that digital messages can flow within the cells.

Intercellular Communication
When I placed pieces of Styrofoam – each with a “1” or “0” written on it - on the parent cell in the presence of sufficient organic material, the Styrofoam signal was transmitted to other cells, and from them to yet others, thus proving that my cells communicate digitally with other members of the community.

Prebiotically plausible conditions
The only conditions needed for my new form of life to arise from non-life are (1) imperfections in the terrain and (2) a source of water. Both were present on the prebiotic Earth.

Conclusion
As I stated earlier, the living cells I created consist of organic molecules contained within a selectively permeable membrane, with the single unit of life displaying growth, reproduction – with the inheritance of traits, metabolism, response to external stimuli, electrical activity, and both intercellular and intracellular communication. Furthermore, the conditions required to create this new life form are prebiotically plausible. These features make my created life form far more astounding that Sidney Fox’s.


So Lucaspa, will you now run around the internet spreading the word of my absolutely amazing discovery! LOL!!!

Of course, the whole point of this ridiculous post is to show how someone can take something that is clearly not living, and by misusing, stretching, or redefining terms, make it appear that their created objects are alive; just as Sidney Fox and (to an even greater degree) Lucaspa have done.