Post by griffman on Dec 18, 2006 14:21:02 GMT -5
Wow. If you did not say anything I wouldn't have noticed I was at 200 .
I'll try to answer you 1 by 1 on this.
Well to put it simply, they are describing different things. The Law of Biogenesis states that Biopoiesis cannot occur naturally anymore because of the living organisms that are on the earth now. If Biopoiesis became a law, it would only be stating that it was possible before organisms were created, and in a controlled environment (laboratory).
I can't help you here, I was under the impression it was a hypothesis. When I was told about it, it was insinuated that it was a hypothesis only, not a law or theory.
It can be advanced using the scientific method, but only in a controlled environment. Basically what scientists are trying to do is recreate the happenings of Biopoiesis. They cannot check if that is really what happened way way back, but they can check if it could have happened. If they cannot recreate it, then it will never become a law. Even if they recreate it a couple times, it will only become a theory. It requires too many assumptions for it to ever become a law.
I see where you are going with this, however, God taking dirt to make Adam is different than proteins forming a single celled organism. Biopoiesis is explaining the beginning formations of life, not humans. Humans were not created until WAAY after the first single celled organisms. When Becky gets on she will be able to help you out with the beginning of humans, however, Biopoieses would have taken place about 4 billion years ago.
First off, I will tell you that a strand of DNA is made up of a sugar, a phosphate and a base. It is the order of the DNA that determines everything about it.
Secondly, a virus *usually* contains RNA, a single strand of DNA. I say usually here because I have never heard of a virus with DNA, and any research I tried to do on the internet said nothing about it. I just don't want to make any assumptions here, except that I assume they were able to create an RNA virus. RNA viruses include cold viruses, SARS, influenza...
The virus was not created out of nothing. It was created from sugars, phosphates, bases, proteins, etc. I couldn't find any lab report written about it, but I can only assume here again (oops ). They most likely put a bunch of all of the things that make up a cell (sugars, etc. written above) into a petri dish and let it do it's thing. I'm sorry I don't have any more info on this.. if you can find it great, otherwise we can only guess. Elements are classified as non-living. Phosphates and sugars are elements. Phosphate is PO4- (phosphorus and 4 oxygen molecules bound together, it is a negative ion). Sugars are many different things. They have to have carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Some have others, but I'm not an expert (yet, as soon as I get into pharmacy school I'll be better .
They are considered non-living mainly because they cannot replicate without the use of a living organism. They have to insert their RNA into a cell that has RNA polymerase, and the proteins of the cell. Also, viruses do not feed, or do anything on their own. This is why you cannot treat viruses the way you do with bacteria. Colds are viruses, and cannot be cured with medication. Your symptoms can be eased by taking acetaminophen, and certain viruses do you antiviruses- but they don't cure the virus, they suppress it. Note: if you catch herpes or HIV, you will NEVER get rid of it unless you die. Herpes is treated with Valtrex- but it only suppresses it from coming to the skin so you can't see the herpes sores. Herpes is stored in nerve chords- so unless you get rid of all your nerves (which will kill you) you will have it forever. HIV is very similar. Even if you replace your blood a million times you will never get rid of it. You can only prolonge your life. There will never be a cure, unless someone can come up with a way to cover your blood cells so that viruses cannot enter. Good luck.
An element is self-replicating but non-living. Also, enzymes are self-replicating but non-living.
No. If they were pre-existing inside the genetic code then every single species would survive. Think of how many species have gone extinct, even before humans started killing them. The bacteria that happened to have mutated a resistance to a certain antibiotic survive, but the ones that hadn't mutated it do not survive. I can't help you out with Becky's "Charles" example... that's her place. I know that a mutation is what begins the evolutionary process. In some circumstances, yes, it could have been a recessive trait that finally comes around. But then after the recessive trait comes out, if it is better for the organism, then eventually it will take over, and the dominant trait will become rare. The reason these recessive traits are there, however, is because of an original mutation. Not every mutation effects the survival rate of species. For instance, bunnies!!! They have many different colorations. When they are in the snow, they are white to camoflauge themselves. However, when they live in other habitats, they can be many different colors and it will not effect them surviving. Think about going into a pet store- how many different colors do you see? Each of these are a mutation from the original color (I don't know what they are originally). They came to be recessive or dominant traits. Bunny fur color has more to do with being dominant and recessive however. They have more than just 2 traits for color, and dominant is not always completely dominant.
OK. I'm guessing you remember/read something about mutations not being held. The greatest one of these that you will probably know about is horses and donkeys mating. They form a mule, the mule can be born, but cannot reproduce. These are reproductive barriers. This is also why it takes so long to have evolutions. First off, if the mutations come into barriers with reproduction, then of course the mutation will not be reproduced and continued. But if this mutation happens and isn't constricted by reproductive barriers, it has a slight possibility of being passed on. That's where the dominant and recessive comes in. Even if it is passed on, if it is recessive then it will not be shown, and still has only a 50% chance of being passed on the the child. Then another 50% chance to be passed to that child.
What I am saying here is, many many have been found unable to reproduce, but yes there are a lot that can be passed on. My example with bacteria is one of the examples. There are many other examples, but I'm tired of writing this for now. If need be later on I'll get some more for you, or Becky will...
I'll try to answer you 1 by 1 on this.
If a law is a tried and tested theory and a theory is a tried and tested hypothesis, how can something be merely hypothesis and replace a law?
Well to put it simply, they are describing different things. The Law of Biogenesis states that Biopoiesis cannot occur naturally anymore because of the living organisms that are on the earth now. If Biopoiesis became a law, it would only be stating that it was possible before organisms were created, and in a controlled environment (laboratory).
Biopoiesis was referred to as theory and law, but without being able to prove it under current conditions ( what other conditions are there to prove it under? ) isn't it, truly, hypothesis?
I can't help you here, I was under the impression it was a hypothesis. When I was told about it, it was insinuated that it was a hypothesis only, not a law or theory.
If it cannot be advanced using scientific method how is science advancing it?
It can be advanced using the scientific method, but only in a controlled environment. Basically what scientists are trying to do is recreate the happenings of Biopoiesis. They cannot check if that is really what happened way way back, but they can check if it could have happened. If they cannot recreate it, then it will never become a law. Even if they recreate it a couple times, it will only become a theory. It requires too many assumptions for it to ever become a law.
And actually, the argument that creationists are using this as a fallacious argument seems wrong. I would argue that Biopoiesis proves creation not disproves it. Did not God form Adam from dirt according to the Bible and then breath life into him? Sounds like Biopoiesis to me.
I see where you are going with this, however, God taking dirt to make Adam is different than proteins forming a single celled organism. Biopoiesis is explaining the beginning formations of life, not humans. Humans were not created until WAAY after the first single celled organisms. When Becky gets on she will be able to help you out with the beginning of humans, however, Biopoieses would have taken place about 4 billion years ago.
On the other hand, how can a virus be created from something nonliving? Does not a virus have a DNA strand? Are we to believe they created a strand from nothing? If the strand came from something living, they did not complete Biopoiesis as the material was not nonliving.
First off, I will tell you that a strand of DNA is made up of a sugar, a phosphate and a base. It is the order of the DNA that determines everything about it.
Secondly, a virus *usually* contains RNA, a single strand of DNA. I say usually here because I have never heard of a virus with DNA, and any research I tried to do on the internet said nothing about it. I just don't want to make any assumptions here, except that I assume they were able to create an RNA virus. RNA viruses include cold viruses, SARS, influenza...
The virus was not created out of nothing. It was created from sugars, phosphates, bases, proteins, etc. I couldn't find any lab report written about it, but I can only assume here again (oops ). They most likely put a bunch of all of the things that make up a cell (sugars, etc. written above) into a petri dish and let it do it's thing. I'm sorry I don't have any more info on this.. if you can find it great, otherwise we can only guess. Elements are classified as non-living. Phosphates and sugars are elements. Phosphate is PO4- (phosphorus and 4 oxygen molecules bound together, it is a negative ion). Sugars are many different things. They have to have carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Some have others, but I'm not an expert (yet, as soon as I get into pharmacy school I'll be better .
And should viruses be classified as nonliving, doesn't that preclude the insinuation of their dna into another cell's dna and replication?
They are considered non-living mainly because they cannot replicate without the use of a living organism. They have to insert their RNA into a cell that has RNA polymerase, and the proteins of the cell. Also, viruses do not feed, or do anything on their own. This is why you cannot treat viruses the way you do with bacteria. Colds are viruses, and cannot be cured with medication. Your symptoms can be eased by taking acetaminophen, and certain viruses do you antiviruses- but they don't cure the virus, they suppress it. Note: if you catch herpes or HIV, you will NEVER get rid of it unless you die. Herpes is treated with Valtrex- but it only suppresses it from coming to the skin so you can't see the herpes sores. Herpes is stored in nerve chords- so unless you get rid of all your nerves (which will kill you) you will have it forever. HIV is very similar. Even if you replace your blood a million times you will never get rid of it. You can only prolonge your life. There will never be a cure, unless someone can come up with a way to cover your blood cells so that viruses cannot enter. Good luck.
I'm, also, very confused by "self-replicating, but nonliving."
It seems illogical that a self-replicating molecule is nonliving. Or am I missing something?
It seems illogical that a self-replicating molecule is nonliving. Or am I missing something?
An element is self-replicating but non-living. Also, enzymes are self-replicating but non-living.
Are not the above examples of bacteria, ant-eater and Charles more examples of traits of the existing genetic code exerting themselves and not mutations? I mean to say, how does a preexisting previously recessive trait constitute mutation or evolution? Adaptation by design, if it was programmed into the dna, perhaps?
No. If they were pre-existing inside the genetic code then every single species would survive. Think of how many species have gone extinct, even before humans started killing them. The bacteria that happened to have mutated a resistance to a certain antibiotic survive, but the ones that hadn't mutated it do not survive. I can't help you out with Becky's "Charles" example... that's her place. I know that a mutation is what begins the evolutionary process. In some circumstances, yes, it could have been a recessive trait that finally comes around. But then after the recessive trait comes out, if it is better for the organism, then eventually it will take over, and the dominant trait will become rare. The reason these recessive traits are there, however, is because of an original mutation. Not every mutation effects the survival rate of species. For instance, bunnies!!! They have many different colorations. When they are in the snow, they are white to camoflauge themselves. However, when they live in other habitats, they can be many different colors and it will not effect them surviving. Think about going into a pet store- how many different colors do you see? Each of these are a mutation from the original color (I don't know what they are originally). They came to be recessive or dominant traits. Bunny fur color has more to do with being dominant and recessive however. They have more than just 2 traits for color, and dominant is not always completely dominant.
If a mutation leads to a new species, have any been found to be able to reproduce and continue the "mutation"?
OK. I'm guessing you remember/read something about mutations not being held. The greatest one of these that you will probably know about is horses and donkeys mating. They form a mule, the mule can be born, but cannot reproduce. These are reproductive barriers. This is also why it takes so long to have evolutions. First off, if the mutations come into barriers with reproduction, then of course the mutation will not be reproduced and continued. But if this mutation happens and isn't constricted by reproductive barriers, it has a slight possibility of being passed on. That's where the dominant and recessive comes in. Even if it is passed on, if it is recessive then it will not be shown, and still has only a 50% chance of being passed on the the child. Then another 50% chance to be passed to that child.
What I am saying here is, many many have been found unable to reproduce, but yes there are a lot that can be passed on. My example with bacteria is one of the examples. There are many other examples, but I'm tired of writing this for now. If need be later on I'll get some more for you, or Becky will...