Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

News item - New protocell research (abiogenesis)

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    Excerpt from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm [go to link for full article] New Way To Think About Earth s First Cells
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Excerpt from:
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm
      [go to link for full article]

      New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells
      (ScienceDaily.com, 6/6/2008)

      A team of researchers at Harvard University have modeled in the
      laboratory a primitive cell, or protocell, that is capable of
      building, copying and containing DNA.

      Since there are no physical records of what the first primitive cells
      on Earth looked like, or how they grew and divided, the research
      team's protocell project offers a useful way to learn about how
      Earth's earliest cells may have interacted with their environment
      approximately 3.5 billion years ago.

      The protocell's fatty acid membrane allows chemical compounds,
      including the building blocks of DNA, to enter into the cell without
      the assistance of the protein channels and pumps required by today's
      highly developed cell membranes. Also unlike modern cells, the
      protocell does not use enzymes for copying its DNA.

      Led by Jack W. Szostak of the Harvard Medical School, the research
      team published its findings in the June 4, 2008, edition of the
      journal Nature's advance online publication.

      "Szostak's group took a creative approach to this research challenge
      and made a significant contribution to our understanding of small
      molecule transport through membranes," said Luis Echegoyen, director
      of the NSF Division of Chemistry.

      When the team started its work, the researchers were not sure that the
      building blocks required for copying the protocell's genetic material
      would be able to enter the cell.

      "By showing that this can happen, and indeed happen quite efficiently,
      we have come a little closer to our goal of making a functional
      protocell that, in the right environment, is able to grow and divide
      on its own," said Szostak.

      "We have found that membranes made from fatty acids and related
      molecules -- the most likely components of primitive cell membranes --
      have properties very different from those of the modern cell membrane,
      which uses specialized pumps, channels or pores to control what gets
      in and out," says Jack Szostak, PhD, of the MGH Department of
      Molecular Biology and Center for Computational and Integrative
      Biology, the report's senior author. "Our report shows that very
      primitive cells may have absorbed nutrients from their environment,
      rather than having to manufacture needed materials internally, which
      supports one of two competing theories about fundamental properties of
      these cells."

      Szostak's team carefully analyzed vesicles comprised of different
      fatty acid molecules and identified particular features that made
      membranes more or less permeable to potential nutrient molecules. They
      found that, while large molecules such as strands of DNA or RNA could
      not pass through fatty acid membranes, the simple sugar molecules and
      individual nucleotides that make up larger nucleic acids easily
      crossed the membrane.

      To further explore the function of a fatty acid cell membrane, the
      researchers used activated nucleotides they developed for this study
      that will copy a DNA template strand without needing the polymerase
      enzyme usually required for DNA replication. After placing template
      molecules inside fatty-acid vesicles and adding the activated
      nucleotides to the external environment, they found that additional
      DNA was formed within the vesicles, confirming that the nucleotide
      molecules were passing through the fatty-acid membranes.

      ------------------------------------------------

      Related references:

      Jack W. Szostak, Ph.D.
      http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak_bio.html

      Mineral Surface Directed Membrane Assembly
      (Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere, Feb. 2008; 37(1):67-82)
      http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hanczyc_et_al_2006_OLEB.pdf

      Structure and Evolutionary Analysis of a Non-biological ATP-binding
      Protein
      (Journal of Molecular Biology, Aug. 10 2007; 371(2):501-13)
      http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/mansy_etal_JMB_2007.pdf
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... Michael Ruse, who Rudy quoted, wrote, ABIOGENESIS DIFFERS FROM SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN ANOTHER IMPORTANT WAY. Rudy, of course, can t figure out that
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 19, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #7850):
        > --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #7849):
        >> --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #7847):
        >> Rudy states, "Simplicity or complexity makes no
        >> difference...."
        >>
        >> Since Rudy is apparently so completely dense that he
        >> can't even comprehend the difference between simple and
        >> complex, I see little purpose to continue discussion
        >> with him after he shows us such dismal incompetence. In
        >> fact, simplicity or complexity makes a great deal of
        >> difference.
        >>
        >> In a further demonstration of incompetence, he also
        >> pretends that I'm somehow making something "sound as
        >> if." Rudy is the one who quoted Michael Ruse and then
        >> immediately tried to misrepresent him. What I've been
        >> doing is quoting Ruse's words right back to Rudy:
        >> "ABIOGENESIS DIFFERS FROM SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN
        >> ANOTHER IMPORTANT WAY." But Rudy is so completely dense
        >> that apparently that's been going way over his head too
        >> (or his memory is completely shot, which is another form
        >> of incompetence), so badly that now he's pretending that
        >> I'm the one who brought it up and is making it "sound as
        >> if."
        >
        > Rudy writes:
        > There goes Todd - again! Saying something I never said!
        > ALL I did, was quote someone who happens to come from
        > Todd's persuasion. The quote NEVER said that abiogenesis
        > was NOT a spontaneous event - it just placed the event in
        > a) a different timeframe, and b) as a SIMPLE rather than
        > a COMPLEX

        Michael Ruse, who Rudy quoted, wrote, "ABIOGENESIS DIFFERS FROM
        SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN ANOTHER IMPORTANT WAY."

        Rudy, of course, can't figure out that abiogenesis differs from
        spontaneous generation. He even quotes a man (Ruse) who states that
        abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation, but then poor Rudy
        can't even comprehend that Ruse stated that abiogenesis differs from
        spontaneous generation, even though that's what Ruse stated.

        > Even Webster's Dictionary (Which, of course HAS to be
        > wrong, since Todd did not write the definition) defines
        > abiogenesis as "spontaneous"...

        In fact, if you look at dictionary definitions (not just Webster's)
        you will see that the definition they are using has become outdated.
        This is precisely because they are using the old definition of
        abiogenesis when the word "abiogenesis" was used to refer to the same
        thing as the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. The
        definitions for "abiogenesis" shown in the dictionaries is NOT
        referring to the concept of abiogenesis as it is used in modern
        scientific research on abiogenesis.

        Don't believe me? All you have to do is read the various dictionary
        definitions:

        From:
        http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abiogenesis

        | The now discredited theory that living organisms can
        | arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous
        | generation.

        [Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006]

        Note that this is referring SPECIFICALLY to the 19th century concept
        of spontaneous generation. Indeed, immediately after the definition it
        adds "Origin: a + biogenesis; coined by T. H. Huxley in 1870." This is
        NOT the the concept of abiogenesis referred to by scientists in modern
        scientific research on abiogenesis.

        Same thing with the American Heritage Science Dictionary (2002):

        | spontaneous generation
        |
        | The supposed development of living organisms from
        | nonliving matter, as maggots from rotting meat. The
        | theory of spontaneous generation for larger organisms was
        | easily shown to be false, but the theory was not fully
        | discredited until the mid-19th century with the
        | demonstration of the existence and reproduction of
        | microorganisms, most notably by Louis Pasteur. Also
        | called abiogenesis.

        This states that "spontaneous generation" is "The supposed development
        of living organisms from nonliving matter, as maggots from rotting
        meat," and adds that this is "Also called abiogenesis," SPECIFICALLY
        referring the older usage of the word "abiogenesis" in the context of
        the 19th century concept. But as we have already seen from the modern
        scientific research on abiogenesis, the concept of abiogenesis used by
        scientists today is NOT the same thing as the 19th century concept.

        Even the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (2002) uses the older
        reference of abiogenesis to spontaneous generation:

        | The supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms
        | directly from lifeless matter called also spontaneous
        | generation.

        But the point is that that is NOT the concept of abiogenesis being
        referred to by scientists doing modern scientific research on
        abiogenesis. NONE of the abiogenesis researchers today are referring
        to "the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly
        from lifeless matter." The concept of abiogenesis used today by
        scientists is not the same thing as the 19th concept of spontaneous
        generation. This is the point.

        As Ruse states, "ABIOGENESIS [he's referring to abiogenesis as it is
        used in modern science] DIFFERS FROM SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN ANOTHER
        IMPORTANT WAY." Living organisms did not generate spontaneously. The
        first living organisms had to have come about through various stages
        of development, by what is called "chemical evolution," over a great
        period of time. I already told you this. This is CONTRARY to the idea
        of "spontaneous generation." This is the point. Rudy has yet to show
        us one single thing about modern abiogenesis research that is any
        different from what what I've been pointing out all along. Ruse says
        the same thing I do. The TalkOrigins site says the same thing I do.
        Abiogenesis researchers say the same thing I do (because, in fact, it
        is the work of abiogenesis researchers today that I'm talking about in
        the first place).

        Rudy keeps trying to pretend that modern abiogenesis research is the
        same thing as the "spontaneous generation" concept of the 19th
        century. This is, in fact, a very popular tactic in creationist
        rhetoric today, to pretend that modern abiogenesis research is about
        "spontaneous generation" for the very purpose of deceiving people with
        a straw man argument against origins of life research pretending it's
        the same thing as the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation.
        They are not the same thing. This is the point. This is the fact that
        Rudy can never get around, no matter how much he tries to wiggle and
        change the subject with red herring remarks.

        > But then, we know that EVERYBODY is wrong - even the
        > scientists Todd quotes...

        This is Rudy falsely and deceitfully pretending that he has come up
        with scientists stating agreement with his creationist notion that the
        concept of abiogenesis used in modern scientific research on
        abiogenesis is the same as the 19th century concept of spontaneous
        generation. Rudy has never produced any such statements. He can't,
        precisely because scientists today who are researching abiogenesis are
        NOT using the 19th concept of spontaneous generation in any way. When
        Rudy pretends that I'm the one saying that everybody (actually, I'm
        referring to scientific researchers who are doing research on
        abiogenesis, not to just anybody) is wrong, he is lying. It is Rudy
        who is disagreeing with the modern scientific concept of abiogenesis,
        because it is Rudy who is falsely pretending that the concept of
        abiogenesis used by researchers today is "the supposed spontaneous
        origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter," when
        in fact what researchers today are referring to is a process of
        "chemical evolution" taking place in stages over millions of years.

        > THEY keep using qualifiers - whereas Todd makes it
        > CERTAINTIES...

        This is Rudy using more word games to try to confuse the issue. I have
        never once stated any "certainties" about abiogenesis research today
        (in fact, Rudy has refused to discuss modern abiogenesis research,
        precisely because he's way too busy ignoring the research precisely by
        deceitfully pretending that it's the same thing as the 19th century
        concept of spontaneous generation). The only certainty I've been
        discussing at all is the simple FACT that the concept of abiogenesis
        used in modern scientific research is not the same thing as the 19th
        century concept of spontaneous generation.

        > Again, the joy of the ignorant must be abundant...

        I always laugh and laugh and laugh when a creationist, such as Rudy,
        pretends someone else is ignorant of science.

        > I guess making
        > up your own definitions as you go along makes you right
        > ALL the time, Todd.

        Of course, it is Rudy who has been diligently ignoring scientific
        research on abiogenesis today - INCLUDING ignoring what the scientists
        are talking about in the research article that I posted the science
        news information about (see the Subject Header above):

        From:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/7832

        New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells
        (ScienceDaily.com, 6/6/2008)
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm

        In that particular piece of research the scientists are dealing with
        an aspect of abiogenesis that would have had to occur during the
        millions of years as one of the various stages of "chemical evolution"
        on the path from nonliving matter to living organisms.


        --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #7851):
        > --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #7849):
        >> Rudy, how is processes taking place according to natural
        >> chemical laws in stages over tens of millions of years
        >> supposed to be "spontaneous"??? Explain that.
        >
        > Hm, IF science indeed is something based on that "which
        > can be observed and repeated through experiments..." you
        > might show us one of those experiments. O wait, I already
        > asked you for that, and you never did show one of those
        > experiments! You just kept quoting people who did NOT say
        > what you wanted them to say!

        This is Rudy changing the subject again, and flagrantly lying in his
        usual manner. (This was over a year ago, when Rudy asked about
        scientific research proving evolution, not abiogenesis. I provided him
        with direct references to such scientific research - indeed, I even
        provided him with a reference to a young earth creationist (Carl
        Wieland) at the Answers in Genesis group who implied that any
        creationist who doesn't accept evolution is a poorly informed
        creationist. (Wieland describes creationists who accept the evolution
        of species as "better-informed creationists.")

        From:
        Rudy's continued ignorance
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4025

        | "Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally
        | think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples
        | of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often
        | surprised at the reaction they get from the
        | better-informed creationists, namely that the creation
        | model depends heavily on speciation."
        |
        | http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp

        Also, note that I asked Rudy this direct question:

        >> Rudy, how is processes taking place according to natural
        >> chemical laws in stages over tens of millions of years
        >> supposed to be "spontaneous"??? Explain that.

        Did Rudy answer the question? Did Rudy explain how processes taking
        place according to natural chemical laws in stages over tens of
        millions of years is supposed to be "spontaneous"? No, of course he
        didn't! Rudy didn't explain it because he can't, because that isn't
        "spontaneous". The modern scientific concept of abiogenesis is not the
        same thing as the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. When
        Ruse stated, "Abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation in
        another important way," this is what he was referring to, because
        chemical processes taking place in stages over tens of millions of
        years is not the same thing as "spontaneous generation."

        > Todd's ignorance is also obvious in his question.
        > Somewhere along the way, Todd, SOMETHING in your process
        > came about spontaneous... Not guided by... Or, as others
        > would say, accidental...

        This is Rudy, in his apparently complete ignorance of the science
        today on abiogenesis, playing more word games merely trying to pretend
        that the concept of abiogenesis today is the same thing as the 19th
        century concept of abiogenesis. But the fact of the matter is that the
        modern concept of abiogenesis in science today is NOT the "spontaneous
        origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter."

        > Somewhere along Todd's chemical process we moved from
        > non-living to living. Show me ONE SINGLE experiment where
        > science has proven that event to take place, Todd...

        Here again we observe Rudy's ignorance and confusion based on his
        ignorance. Abiogenesis is NOT an "event." The concept is about a long
        process of chemical evolution taking place in stages over millions of
        years. Therefore by its very nature there cannot be one single
        experiment, but there have to be NUMEROUS experiments demonstrating
        various aspects of the chemical processes at various stages. And it is
        just one PARTICULAR aspect of these processes that is being referred
        to by the research news I posted in the first place.

        From:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/7832

        New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells
        (ScienceDaily.com, 6/6/2008)
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm

        But poor Rudy, and other creationists like him, are so handicapped by
        their lack of competence in comprehending even what the basic subject
        is about, that they can't even begin to understand the nature of the
        research being done or its significance in the context of the field of
        abiogenesis research.

        - Todd Greene

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Excerpt from:

        Abiogenesis
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

        | Spontaneous generation
        |
        | Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely
        | known as spontaneous generation, held that complex,
        | living organisms are generated by decaying organic
        | substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored
        | grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

        | By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other
        | scientists demonstrated that living organisms did not
        | arise spontaneously from non-living matter....
      • Robert Baty
        I happened to notice that discussion on the cocBanned list. It kinda reminds me of the Warren-Flew/Matson debates. Warren pressed the question as to whether
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 19, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I happened to notice that discussion on the cocBanned list. It kinda reminds me of the Warren-Flew/Matson debates.

          Warren pressed the question as to whether the first woman was born or evolved from a lower form. Excluding the option that the first woman was born from something not a woman, the issue centered upon evolution of the first woman.

          Warren proposed that, regardless of the time it takes to evolve, the transition from non-woman to woman was "spontaneous". In other words, some non-woman creature was walking through the woods one day and, as it lifted up its left foot to take the next step, it was still a non-woman. However, when it let down its left foot it was a woman; it had evolved from a non-woman to a woman.

          So, I think that is the sort of thing Rudy is getting at with his spontaneous generation claim about abiogenesis; though there is, as noted by Todd, the problem of coming to agreement on definitions. (And some wonder why I was so insistent that McDonald and I agree upon definitions BEFORE our proposed debate!)

          Rudy, quite Warren-like, appears to be taking the position that, regardless of the millions of years over which the chemical evolution of life may have occurred, at some point (i.e., between when the non-woman's foot is up and when the woman's foot is down) you have "spontaneous generation" from that lifeless chemical mixture to a chemical mixture with life.

          While, by definition, that may be spontaneous generation, the term itself may be easily confused, as Todd has noted, with the use of the same term to describe the "maggots from meat" error of the 19th century.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Todd S. Greene
          Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 2:06 PM
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [M & B] Re: News item - New protocell research (abiogenesis)

          --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #7850):
          > --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #7849):
          >> --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #7847):
          >> Rudy states, "Simplicity or complexity makes no
          >> difference...."
          >>
          >> Since Rudy is apparently so completely dense that he
          >> can't even comprehend the difference between simple and
          >> complex, I see little purpose to continue discussion
          >> with him after he shows us such dismal incompetence. In
          >> fact, simplicity or complexity makes a great deal of
          >> difference.
          >>
          >> In a further demonstration of incompetence, he also
          >> pretends that I'm somehow making something "sound as
          >> if." Rudy is the one who quoted Michael Ruse and then
          >> immediately tried to misrepresent him. What I've been
          >> doing is quoting Ruse's words right back to Rudy:
          >> "ABIOGENESIS DIFFERS FROM SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN
          >> ANOTHER IMPORTANT WAY." But Rudy is so completely dense
          >> that apparently that's been going way over his head too
          >> (or his memory is completely shot, which is another form
          >> of incompetence), so badly that now he's pretending that
          >> I'm the one who brought it up and is making it "sound as
          >> if."
          >
          > Rudy writes:
          > There goes Todd - again! Saying something I never said!
          > ALL I did, was quote someone who happens to come from
          > Todd's persuasion. The quote NEVER said that abiogenesis
          > was NOT a spontaneous event - it just placed the event in
          > a) a different timeframe, and b) as a SIMPLE rather than
          > a COMPLEX

          Michael Ruse, who Rudy quoted, wrote, "ABIOGENESIS DIFFERS FROM
          SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN ANOTHER IMPORTANT WAY."

          Rudy, of course, can't figure out that abiogenesis differs from
          spontaneous generation. He even quotes a man (Ruse) who states that
          abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation, but then poor Rudy
          can't even comprehend that Ruse stated that abiogenesis differs from
          spontaneous generation, even though that's what Ruse stated.

          > Even Webster's Dictionary (Which, of course HAS to be
          > wrong, since Todd did not write the definition) defines
          > abiogenesis as "spontaneous"...

          In fact, if you look at dictionary definitions (not just Webster's)
          you will see that the definition they are using has become outdated.
          This is precisely because they are using the old definition of
          abiogenesis when the word "abiogenesis" was used to refer to the same
          thing as the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. The
          definitions for "abiogenesis" shown in the dictionaries is NOT
          referring to the concept of abiogenesis as it is used in modern
          scientific research on abiogenesis.

          Don't believe me? All you have to do is read the various dictionary
          definitions:

          From:
          http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abiogenesis

          | The now discredited theory that living organisms can
          | arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous
          | generation.

          [Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006]

          Note that this is referring SPECIFICALLY to the 19th century concept
          of spontaneous generation. Indeed, immediately after the definition it
          adds "Origin: a + biogenesis; coined by T. H. Huxley in 1870." This is
          NOT the the concept of abiogenesis referred to by scientists in modern
          scientific research on abiogenesis.

          Same thing with the American Heritage Science Dictionary (2002):

          | spontaneous generation
          |
          | The supposed development of living organisms from
          | nonliving matter, as maggots from rotting meat. The
          | theory of spontaneous generation for larger organisms was
          | easily shown to be false, but the theory was not fully
          | discredited until the mid-19th century with the
          | demonstration of the existence and reproduction of
          | microorganisms, most notably by Louis Pasteur. Also
          | called abiogenesis.

          This states that "spontaneous generation" is "The supposed development
          of living organisms from nonliving matter, as maggots from rotting
          meat," and adds that this is "Also called abiogenesis," SPECIFICALLY
          referring the older usage of the word "abiogenesis" in the context of
          the 19th century concept. But as we have already seen from the modern
          scientific research on abiogenesis, the concept of abiogenesis used by
          scientists today is NOT the same thing as the 19th century concept.

          Even the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (2002) uses the older
          reference of abiogenesis to spontaneous generation:

          | The supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms
          | directly from lifeless matter called also spontaneous
          | generation.

          But the point is that that is NOT the concept of abiogenesis being
          referred to by scientists doing modern scientific research on
          abiogenesis. NONE of the abiogenesis researchers today are referring
          to "the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly
          from lifeless matter." The concept of abiogenesis used today by
          scientists is not the same thing as the 19th concept of spontaneous
          generation. This is the point.

          As Ruse states, "ABIOGENESIS [he's referring to abiogenesis as it is
          used in modern science] DIFFERS FROM SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IN ANOTHER
          IMPORTANT WAY." Living organisms did not generate spontaneously. The
          first living organisms had to have come about through various stages
          of development, by what is called "chemical evolution," over a great
          period of time. I already told you this. This is CONTRARY to the idea
          of "spontaneous generation." This is the point. Rudy has yet to show
          us one single thing about modern abiogenesis research that is any
          different from what what I've been pointing out all along. Ruse says
          the same thing I do. The TalkOrigins site says the same thing I do.
          Abiogenesis researchers say the same thing I do (because, in fact, it
          is the work of abiogenesis researchers today that I'm talking about in
          the first place).

          Rudy keeps trying to pretend that modern abiogenesis research is the
          same thing as the "spontaneous generation" concept of the 19th
          century. This is, in fact, a very popular tactic in creationist
          rhetoric today, to pretend that modern abiogenesis research is about
          "spontaneous generation" for the very purpose of deceiving people with
          a straw man argument against origins of life research pretending it's
          the same thing as the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation.
          They are not the same thing. This is the point. This is the fact that
          Rudy can never get around, no matter how much he tries to wiggle and
          change the subject with red herring remarks.

          > But then, we know that EVERYBODY is wrong - even the
          > scientists Todd quotes...

          This is Rudy falsely and deceitfully pretending that he has come up
          with scientists stating agreement with his creationist notion that the
          concept of abiogenesis used in modern scientific research on
          abiogenesis is the same as the 19th century concept of spontaneous
          generation. Rudy has never produced any such statements. He can't,
          precisely because scientists today who are researching abiogenesis are
          NOT using the 19th concept of spontaneous generation in any way. When
          Rudy pretends that I'm the one saying that everybody (actually, I'm
          referring to scientific researchers who are doing research on
          abiogenesis, not to just anybody) is wrong, he is lying. It is Rudy
          who is disagreeing with the modern scientific concept of abiogenesis,
          because it is Rudy who is falsely pretending that the concept of
          abiogenesis used by researchers today is "the supposed spontaneous
          origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter," when
          in fact what researchers today are referring to is a process of
          "chemical evolution" taking place in stages over millions of years.

          > THEY keep using qualifiers - whereas Todd makes it
          > CERTAINTIES...

          This is Rudy using more word games to try to confuse the issue. I have
          never once stated any "certainties" about abiogenesis research today
          (in fact, Rudy has refused to discuss modern abiogenesis research,
          precisely because he's way too busy ignoring the research precisely by
          deceitfully pretending that it's the same thing as the 19th century
          concept of spontaneous generation). The only certainty I've been
          discussing at all is the simple FACT that the concept of abiogenesis
          used in modern scientific research is not the same thing as the 19th
          century concept of spontaneous generation.

          > Again, the joy of the ignorant must be abundant...

          I always laugh and laugh and laugh when a creationist, such as Rudy,
          pretends someone else is ignorant of science.

          > I guess making
          > up your own definitions as you go along makes you right
          > ALL the time, Todd.

          Of course, it is Rudy who has been diligently ignoring scientific
          research on abiogenesis today - INCLUDING ignoring what the scientists
          are talking about in the research article that I posted the science
          news information about (see the Subject Header above):

          From:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/7832

          New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells
          (ScienceDaily.com, 6/6/2008)
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm

          In that particular piece of research the scientists are dealing with
          an aspect of abiogenesis that would have had to occur during the
          millions of years as one of the various stages of "chemical evolution"
          on the path from nonliving matter to living organisms.


          --- In coCBanned, Rudy Schellekens wrote (post #7851):
          > --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #7849):
          >> Rudy, how is processes taking place according to natural
          >> chemical laws in stages over tens of millions of years
          >> supposed to be "spontaneous"??? Explain that.
          >
          > Hm, IF science indeed is something based on that "which
          > can be observed and repeated through experiments..." you
          > might show us one of those experiments. O wait, I already
          > asked you for that, and you never did show one of those
          > experiments! You just kept quoting people who did NOT say
          > what you wanted them to say!

          This is Rudy changing the subject again, and flagrantly lying in his
          usual manner. (This was over a year ago, when Rudy asked about
          scientific research proving evolution, not abiogenesis. I provided him
          with direct references to such scientific research - indeed, I even
          provided him with a reference to a young earth creationist (Carl
          Wieland) at the Answers in Genesis group who implied that any
          creationist who doesn't accept evolution is a poorly informed
          creationist. (Wieland describes creationists who accept the evolution
          of species as "better-informed creationists.")

          From:
          Rudy's continued ignorance
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/4025

          | "Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally
          | think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples
          | of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often
          | surprised at the reaction they get from the
          | better-informed creationists, namely that the creation
          | model depends heavily on speciation."
          |
          | http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/speciation.asp

          Also, note that I asked Rudy this direct question:

          >> Rudy, how is processes taking place according to natural
          >> chemical laws in stages over tens of millions of years
          >> supposed to be "spontaneous"??? Explain that.

          Did Rudy answer the question? Did Rudy explain how processes taking
          place according to natural chemical laws in stages over tens of
          millions of years is supposed to be "spontaneous"? No, of course he
          didn't! Rudy didn't explain it because he can't, because that isn't
          "spontaneous". The modern scientific concept of abiogenesis is not the
          same thing as the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. When
          Ruse stated, "Abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation in
          another important way," this is what he was referring to, because
          chemical processes taking place in stages over tens of millions of
          years is not the same thing as "spontaneous generation."

          > Todd's ignorance is also obvious in his question.
          > Somewhere along the way, Todd, SOMETHING in your process
          > came about spontaneous... Not guided by... Or, as others
          > would say, accidental...

          This is Rudy, in his apparently complete ignorance of the science
          today on abiogenesis, playing more word games merely trying to pretend
          that the concept of abiogenesis today is the same thing as the 19th
          century concept of abiogenesis. But the fact of the matter is that the
          modern concept of abiogenesis in science today is NOT the "spontaneous
          origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter."

          > Somewhere along Todd's chemical process we moved from
          > non-living to living. Show me ONE SINGLE experiment where
          > science has proven that event to take place, Todd...

          Here again we observe Rudy's ignorance and confusion based on his
          ignorance. Abiogenesis is NOT an "event." The concept is about a long
          process of chemical evolution taking place in stages over millions of
          years. Therefore by its very nature there cannot be one single
          experiment, but there have to be NUMEROUS experiments demonstrating
          various aspects of the chemical processes at various stages. And it is
          just one PARTICULAR aspect of these processes that is being referred
          to by the research news I posted in the first place.

          From:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/7832

          New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells
          (ScienceDaily.com, 6/6/2008)
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm

          But poor Rudy, and other creationists like him, are so handicapped by
          their lack of competence in comprehending even what the basic subject
          is about, that they can't even begin to understand the nature of the
          research being done or its significance in the context of the field of
          abiogenesis research.

          - Todd Greene

          ----------------------------------------------------------------

          Excerpt from:

          Abiogenesis
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

          | Spontaneous generation
          |
          | Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely
          | known as spontaneous generation, held that complex,
          | living organisms are generated by decaying organic
          | substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored
          | grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

          | By the middle of the 19th century Pasteur and other
          | scientists demonstrated that living organisms did not
          | arise spontaneously from non-living matter....




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.