Talk:Law of biogenesis

Revert

I'm sure the Hindus believe that life arose from non-living matter as opposed to another deity, Karajou. Barikada 23:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Should I not recieve any sort of response within the next ten minutes, Karajou, I'll reinstate my edit. Barikada 23:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)

The line in question has to do with creationists, the people who believe in the God of the Bible. What you added was a bit sarcastic. Karajou 00:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)

There are non-Christian creationists, Karajou, and the line does not specifically address the Christian variety. On another note, my entry was in no way sarcastic. Barikada 00:06, 7 March 2008 (EST)

If you please, take it up with Aschlafly. Karajou 00:09, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Why should I trouble Andy with this matter, when it is entirely between you and I? Barikada 00:11, 7 March 2008 (EST)

It's simple...you may not respect me, as you stated on your talk page, but you will respect this website and our conservative/Judeo-Christian beliefs. Karajou 00:12, 7 March 2008 (EST)

How is accounting for the beliefs of others disrespectful to your Judeo-Christian beliefs, let alone your conservative beliefs or this website? Barikada 00:13, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I think that the problem in some ways is that most of the debate is between evolutionists and Christian creationists. And most of the little bit beyond Christians is with Jews and Muslims, both of which are "related" monotheistic religions. Barikada is technically correct in that atheists would reject life being created by any "god", but to my mind the question is how relevant those other "gods" are, given what I've just said about the debate. That is, I fully accept that atheists would not accept a Hindu creation account (at least if it does propose a creation, but I have my doubts about that anyway), but how many atheists do you see actually debating this with Hindus (or vice versa)? It's really a non-issue there. And the altered wording was a little awkward to make that irrelevant point. However, I've altered it in a different way that is more encompassing, without the awkwardness. All happy? Philip J. Rayment 08:45, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Thank you, Philip. ALthough I disagree that the wording was awkward or irrelevant. Barikada 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Ribosome Biogenesis...

...is completely different from the biogenesis discussed in this article. TheGySom 22:58, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Could you add more info about it, why is it different?

(Ribosomes are complexes of RNA and protein that are found in all cells.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 00:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Sure, the article talks about the law of biogenesis, which states that all living things must come from living things. Ribosome biogenesis, although similar in title, is a completely different process.

Ribosomes are, as you correctly identified, parts of cells where proteins are produced. However Schwann's cell theory states that a cell is the basic unit of life, and using this anything smaller than a cell is classified as non-living (a virus, for instance). As a ribosome is only a component of a cell then it does not have life of its own.

In short, the article talks about living things coming from living things instead of non-living things, the picture shows a non-living thing being produced by a living thing. Hope this clears it up. TheGySom 08:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I am sure this needs more than a references to Schwann's defintion. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, lets clarify this before going any further, what do you disagree with? TheGySom 08:51, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

So far, I'm agreeing with TheGySom. Philip J. Rayment 08:54, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Cell is not the basic unit of life. A virus is also a living thing. They have all the process of any other bigger living thing. Maybe we, at this point, don't know enough about it but science is working on it. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:02, 28 March 2008 (EDT)