|
Abiogenesis Debate ii |
|||
|
Wow, an early response. Of course it is Christmas break so I have a little time to spare. First I’d like to address amstree’s responses – which I might add appeals more to personal objections of what he thinks true science is leading him rather than debating the topic at hand. It is a common tactic to attack the individual (and his belief system or credentials) as oppose to addressing the topic which was “by chance or from design”. Amstree, I don’t think you have yet to provide any scientific evidence for your pontifications other than a poorly done cut and paste job of my posts and reusing them to attack me. Lets stop the personal attacks and use real science if you want me to respond to your posts, other wise I will be forced to ignore all your responses – as I have no objections to usable, testable, repeatable science as I am a student of science as well as a teacher of science and there is nothing that you observe or for that matter any evolutionist observes in the real world that I disagree with – only the interpretations there of. --------------------------------------------- To roughly explain the terms – evolution requires an accumulation of complexity from simple life forms to complex ones. However in order for this to occur – new information (in life it is known as DNA) must be created, retained and passed on from one generation to another. This however is not seen in nature, information is not created at all, but merely the reshuffling, or suppression of existing information that results in – the changes that are so called - microevolution. These concepts came about in the light of information theory which I am only beginning to research. potato said: I have to disagree. The evolutionary process process (mutation controlled by natural selection) is not merely a mechanism of reshuffling and suppression. You can disagree all you want potato. Covering your eyes to the truth does not make it go away. Is there any undisputed proof of this? Changes that occur within kinds (which I agree takes place) however they are quite different than that which is required to change one kind to another (i.e. reptiles evolving into birds). As you should know there are no known mechanism that exists within any living organism that are used exclusively to create new genetic material. That may be true of mutation only, but it ignores the effect of selection. Genetic algorithms which are based on the evolutionary process have been used to create design in industry and have been used to generate a number of new patents. No one said that such a system could not be copied and applied to other facets of life as that in itself requires the intelligence of the individual to do so. It is how such systems all are attributed to have been the result of a blind process. If a process can create design to this degree then I cannot see how it can possibly be argued that the evolutionary process cannot add new information, whatever the information model being used. Exactly, a process which requires intelligence or the “I” factor and guidance to bring about, which I firmly believe was the case as the genetic code testifies to that intelligence – an infinite intelligence I might add. Time is erroneously portrayed as a friend to evolution as it is postulated that peptide formation from a few amino acids to a usable protein and on to the first primitive living organism took many millions of years. Time however is no friend to the formation of peptides. Time rather is the enemy in that it allows entropy to destroy the order that may have arisen by chance - as primitive proteins (let alone actual proteins) are simply not stable enough to remain intact for the length of time as required by evolution. Present day experiments show us exactly what happens when proteins are left in a petri dish or test tube. They decay and break down into basic substances, it does not organize itself into any form of life. --------------------------------------------- art said: Couple of issues with this paragraph. First, no-one said that the current form of DNA/RNA/Protein replication is the only form of replicator that ever existed. Clearly, what we currently see is the end result of a process which was built up from smaller, less complex predecessors, all of which operated as successful replicators in the past.
That’s because there are no other known replication processes out there –
as all life that we know today uses the very current system in which we
see today. If it were the case that other different replicative processes
were used before this present one, then there would be plenty of evidence
to show us this wouldn’t there be? What we find is that there is no such
evidence. Bingo! It is sinking in isn’t it, now we are getting somewhere – to the realization that life was created by a Creator perhaps? Your statement ignores the way that evolution keeps what works and discards the rest. And your responses ignore what is observed to occur in the natural world, which is quite different from the evolutionary myth you have been lead into believing.
Scientific evidence please (i.e. a working model, chemical pathways, repeatable experiments) or are you simply speaking from personal authority? Perhaps we can go over the merits of some of the current theories that have been proposed to solve this dilema? For now though lets go into further detail on the workings of a DNA molecule and how it could not have been built up piece by piece. For the sake of this discussion however I will give you that axiom that it can be assembled bit by bit. Does such an unguided process take into account the instability of DNA molecules as they do break down due to hydrolysis of the glycosyl bonds and the hydrolytic deamination of the bases. - Lindahl, T. and Karlström, O., 1973. Heat-induced depyrimidation of deoxyribonucleic acid in neutral solution. Biochemistry 12:5151–5154. It is currently known that each human cell turns over 2,000–10,000 DNA purine bases every day for repair due to break down. Because genetic information can only be stored stably in the presence of DNA repair enzymes that scan the DNA and replace the damaged parts without these enzymes it would be impossible for primitive cells to keep up with the constant damage by the environment and its own internal reactions. If the damage is not repaired the cell will die. Now imagine such a system which can diagnose and repair itself to have come into existence on its own , simultaneously – what again are the chances of that? It is just as ridiculous as saying that a tornado going through a junkyard will assemble a jumbo jet. Time is the friend of evolution, as it allows for many generations, each of which is able to pass on its characteristics to the next. Without a fully functional, viable information storage and retrieval system there is no passing on of any characteristic. Again, what is observed from the real world is that acquired characteristics are not passed on to future generations at all. Take for example body builders or Olympic athletes who are considered physically superior to the average person. As their offspring it would be quite an advantage to have such characteristics simply be passed on instead of working so hard to reach that level. What happens instead is that their offspring are as ordinary as they themselves once were. To say that acquired characteristics can be passed on to future generations disregards the true observations from the real world. Advantageous variations are perpetuated, bad ones die out. In this way the population of organisms diversifies. It is always convenient to make assertions based entirely on wishful thinking as oppose to what is observed to occur. And besides since when has theories taken precedence over experimental evidence? And I ask show me experimental evidence for this. I don't see how arguing the details of the way proteins work now has any bearing on abiogenesis, since the earliest replicators could not possibly have borne any resemblance to those that exist today. Are we talking about life from non life here, as that was the topic at hand - was it not? What you believe about early life has no bearings on current life as there is no evidence to support your belief other than the fact that you believe it be – again I ask where is scientific evidence that these early replicators ever existed? --------------------------------------------- Arth said: Please, if you can't be bothered spelling out my full name (or using the quote tags), call me 'Arth', not 'Art'. Can do. That’s because there are no other known replication processes out there, as all life that we know today uses the very current system in which we see today. If it were the case that other different replicative processes were used before this present one, then there would be plenty of evidence to show us this wouldn’t there be? What we find is that there is no such evidence. You have obviously missed the point that scenarios do not make a proof. I was offering a scenario, not a proof. As scenarios will never override repeatable, experimentable evidence in any scientific circle. Bingo! And nothing will! It is sinking in isn’t it, now we are getting somewhere ? to the realization that life was created by a Creator perhaps? Oh please. If you are going to continue to parrot the lie that evolution is based solely on random juxtaposition, then I'm not going to bother answering you any more. That is not what I am saying at all. I have no doubt the ToE uses science to support many of its outlandish conclusions – however most if not all of what it claims contradicts what is observed in the natural world (spontaneous protein formation is simply one of them). And your responses ignore what is observed to occur in the natural world, which is quite different from the evolutionary myth you have been lead into believing. ...and your statement still continues to ignore the way evolution keeps what works and discards the rest. In what way is this demonstrated to be untrue in nature? Please be specific. Present me with some evidence, any evidence, that nature does not work by keeping what works and discarding what does not. It should be pretty easy. I will address this in another thread entitled “Evolution Is Not Scientific” at a later date. Scientific evidence please (i.e. a working model, chemical pathways, repeatable experiments) or are you simply speaking from personal authority? Perhaps we can go over the merits of some of the current theories that have been proposed to solve this dilema? *sigh* Do I really have to answer that? I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall here. Pointing me to some scientific research supporting your stand would suffice. For now though lets go into further detail on the workings of a DNA molecule and how it could not have been built up piece by piece. Let's not. You're only going to bring up the old 'tornado in a junkyard' fallacy again. Yes, disregard observational evidence in favor of wishful thinking. Show me why the analogy is fallacious instead of simply saying it is. The fallacy is the conclusion that the genetic code which is required to assemble such a machine came about by natural unguided processes, when nothing of the sort is found in the natural world. Again, what is observed from the real world is that acquired characteristics are not passed on to future generations at all. Take for example body builders or Olympic athletes who are considered physically superior to the average person. Oh yes. It is really very easy to discredit Lamarckism. After all, it was discredited over a hundred years ago. Trying to argue against Lamarckism is not going to hold any water in a debate about evolution, Crusadar. So why keep bringing it back up? If a theory has been established that it is not the case as it has been discredited then let it be buried, why continue to resurrect it? Let me put this in simple terms. Evolution does not teach inheritance of acquired characteristics. It teaches genetic inheritance, and there is no 'writing-back' of acquired characteristics like a bodybuilder's muscles back into the DNA. Of course not, it teaches that changes which are beneficial are retained, and changes that are not are discarded. It would seem only logical that physical superiority in speed and strength would be quite beneficial and yet such characteristics are not retained - because no known mechanism exists which occurs in any organism to generate the genetic information required for the characteristic to be passed on. It is always convenient to make assertions based entirely on wishful thinking as oppose to what is observed to occur. And besides since when has theories taken precedence over experimental evidence? And I ask show me experimental evidence for this. Show me experimental evidence that it is not! I think I have shown more of true science than anyone so far. You are convinced that it does so it is for you to come up with the evidence. My statement is pure logic. And no scientific evidence at all. Are we talking about life from non life here, as that was the topic at hand - was it not? What you believe about early life has no bearings on current life as there is no evidence to support your belief other than the fact that you believe it be? Again I ask where is scientific evidence that these early replicators ever existed? As far as I know, the definition of 'abiogenesis' included the progression of life from non-life. At the risk of repeating myself (again), science does not yet have all the answers. Only religion can claim that. There are many theories and many scenarios. And which theory is the strongest in your opinion? The RNA or TNA world, protocells redux, protein microspheres, the hydrothermal origin of life, the magnetic field scenerio, or maybe the optically active quartz powders scenario? We can discuss their merits if you want. And no, we do not yet have scientific proof. I see, so “real” science does not support your belief system at all. If you're going to leap on this statement and say 'then how can you believe anything in science', then I think I'm going to scream. I think you may be jumping to your own conclusions here. I said no such thing nor have I implied such. I am a science teacher remember? Science is my bread and butter. I love science as it put man on the moon, cures diseases and allows us to have discussions in this manner. Now evolutionary science that is a different issue – it is IMO nothing more than junk science as it benefits none of the other hard earned sciences. Crusadar, for all your knowledge about peptides and DNA, you demonstrate a woeful misunderstanding of the principles involved in evolution. Lets address the topic and not attack the individual as whether they understand something or not as that is irrelevant to the topic – you can be sure that I will not do the same. And besides what makes you so sure I do not understand evolution? After all it was a part of the course requirement for my science teaching degree. In one post you have assumed that evolution is the same as random chance, confused evolution with Lamarckism, and challenged science to produce absolute truth. Please point to the post. My challenge is for evolutionists to provide scientific proof that life can arise from non life – and what I see is nothing of the sort - except wishful thinking. Sorry, Crusadar, but if this is indicative of your understanding of evolution then you really need to do a lot more research. I would suggest starting at Talk.Origins with the essay 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. You might also want to look at Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. More research into evolutionary nonsense? No thanks, I’d rather stick with real science. Evolution – common ancestry of all life forms from the simplest to the most complex through natural selection acting upon beneficial mutations over vast amounts of time. How about if I just explain it with a formula: matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods = life However lets bring what your links have to say about the topic at hand on the table point by point rather than provide links if you want me to address them. BTW, note that this is not an ad-hom. I am arguing directly against your statements, not your person. ad hominem : adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: (If I am not mistaken that is exactly what you are doing. ---------------------------------------- Equilibrium is reached in such a mixture when there are just as many peptides that have combined as there are those that have not combined or has been broken down into their initial parts. It is possible that a small fraction of the dipeptides can combine with a third or even a fourth amino acid to form a tripeptide, and polypeptides. However the larger the chain of amino acids becomes the more likely that the longer chains will disassociate and be broken down – unless of course there are as you call it “catalysts” to speed the process up or keep the polypeptide chain from breaking apart before it can combine to become a usable protein – to this day nothing of the sort has been found to exist. Hominid said: This is pretty much what I was trying to say in my previous posts. Sorry if I wasn't so clear. but you now seem to be echoing my point. Sure, the longer the peptides are, the rarer they will become. In a laboratory beaker, the longer chains will be negligible or even non-existent. But in a beaker the size of the oceans, very small concentrations will none-the-less add up to significant total numbers. Any documented proof of this? Or are you speaking simply from personal authority that the larger the test tube the better the chances? And the catalysts are important. The first replicators probably were not just RNA or poly-peptides, but associations of complex organic molecules with catalytic mineral surfaces. What may I ask are those catalysts? Did I miss something as I am clueless as to what you are talking about. Is this really sound science - to make up things that are not observed to occur? And so what if they have not yet been found to exist? And it won’t be found – simply because life can not and did not arise spontaneously. That is the point of doing science, to find out whether they can exists, and whether their existence is plausible on the primitive earth. I have no objections to real science hominid, only the version of science that you have been lead into believing which to this day cannot be demonstrated. Present day experiments shows us exactly what happens when proteins are left in a petri dish or test tube – they decay and break down into basic substances, it does not organize itself into any form of life. But how quickly do they break down? It can't be immediately, since the human digestive system needs special digestive enzymes to break apart the polypeptides consumed in food. And in the cells, special enzymes are also used to break apart the polypeptides when needed - the cell doesn't wait for the polypeptide to disassociate by itself. I have no doubt that the polypeptide is energetically unfavorable compared to free amino acids, but I suspect that the energy barrier to spontaneous disassociation is suffiently high that the rate of spontaneious dissassociation is manageably low. Here is a requote of how three of the twenty amino acids found in present day cells decompose easily during the process of proteinoid (theorized to have been precursors to present day proteins) formation. "The amino acids not represented in proteinoids in the proportions usually found in proteins were cystine, serine, and threonine. These latter were largely, although not entirely, decomposed." (Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose, W. H. Freeman and Co., 1972, p148) Because these three amino acids break down before it can even become a protein certain steps must be taken in order for them to be present in the final product. "Inclusion in the polymeric product of several percent of serine, threonine, cysteine, or cystine can be accomplished by carrying out the condensation at lower temperatures, such as 130 degrees celcius, and by including polyphosphoric acid to conserve cysteine or cystine (Genaux et al., 1967) or sodium polyphosphate (Dose and Rauchfuss, 1972). These amino acids are otherwise almost completely destroyed." (Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose, W. H. Freeman and Co., 1972, p152) Now obviously the controlled methods used required the intelligence of the researchers and cannot be associated with any natural process, can it. It is was also found that proteinoids were of the wrong bonding and did not resemble true proteins at all as in those found in all known life where only alpha-peptide bonds occur - proteinoids however showed other bonding configurations – which obviously contributes further to its instability. "Sidney Fox found that by heating and drying a mixture of amino acids, and then dissolving the mixture in water, he could obtain strings of amino acids displaying weak catalytic activity. Unfortunately, however, the amino acids were linked in a variety of different ways, and not only by peptide bonds.¨ - John Maynard Smith & Eors Szathmary, The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language, Oxford University Press, NY, 1999, p. 32 “K studies using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) have shown that thermal proteinoids have scarce resemblance to natural peptidic material because [beta], [gamma], and [epsilon] bonds largely predominate over [alpha]-peptide bonds" -Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry]. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley 1984 p.155-156). I still see no reason why I should consider abiogenesis impossible, or even highly improbable. I won’t make personal comments on your reasons for objecting to what has been presented but rather will give you a quote that perhaps may apply in this matter: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31. ---------------------------------------- potatoerror said: Crusadar as you seem more scientifically in-tune than most Creationists I happen by, perhaps you could give your opinion on he pattern of Retroviral insertions as found amongst the genomes of species on Earth. Um, only because the field of science is my bread and butter. Why for example do chimps and humans share over a dozen of the exact same retroviral insertions in the exact same place in their respective genomes? Um, because they were created by the same creator? However lets look at the fallacy of the conclusion that it shows beyond doubt that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. From what we currently know, the DNA in cells hold much of the information needed for the development of any organism. As such if two organisms look similar, it would be expected that there would also be similarities in their DNA. For example if we were to examine the DNA of two mammals, lets say a horse and a dog, it should reveal to us that they would be more alike in their DNA structure than a DNA comparison between a horse and a reptile. In fact there are certain biochemical processes that are common to all living things, as such there exists even a slight degree of similarity between yeast DNA and that of humans as we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes and proteins that do the same jobs in both types of cells. An example of this similarity is the almost identical DNA coding for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins. Does this prove that we are descended from yeast? Of course not. If there were no genetic similarities between the species, then the whole basis that genetic information determines not only specie type but also physical characteristics and physiological processes in living things would need to be questioned. Since humans and apes have many morphological similarities, we would find that there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA – and what do you know. As such it is only logical that any parasitic organism preying on its host would insert its own genes in the same genetic sequence of different hosts as both hosts share many similar DNA sequences as well as physiological functions. Does similarity of DNA sequence prove common ancestry? No it tells us logically that there was only one Creator, as oppose to many creators. The similarity of life processes simply reveal to us that there is only One True God who made it all. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses And of all places – talkorigins – simply a lot of talk, and no origin-ality . From experience, a discussion of genetics at the level which can refute this requires that we examine the original sources of the articles referenced - without prejudice of course then we can begin to address the issue – as web sites are hardly what I regard as reliable sources. As such you will never see a link to any site in any of my posts. Why does the pattern of shared retroviral insertion amongst species agree match the evolutionary tree? For me, retroviral evidence shows common descent of species to be beyond any reasonable doubt. Of course it does, since you are already convinced that life from no life is possible, when in reality observations from the natural world demonstrates that it can not. ---------------------------------------- Hominid said: But in a beaker the size of the oceans, very small concentrations will none-the-less add up to significant total numbers. Any documented proof of this? Or are you speaking simply from personal authority that the larger the test tube the better the chances? Let's see: concentration times volume equals total amount. Didn't you say you've had training in chemistry? And the catalysts are important. The first replicators probably were not just RNA or poly-peptides, but associations of complex organic molecules with catalytic mineral surfaces. What may I ask are those catalysts? Did I miss something as I am clueless as to what you are talking about. Is this really sound science - to make up things that are not observed to occur? Here are some abstracts that I did with a google search. I bet PubMed will give more. This is from a post on another message board: Try a search for Kobayashi, Krishnamurty or Orgel (or even Miller, who's still very much active). Ferris JP, Hill AR, Liu R, Orgel LE, 1996, "Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces" Nature, 381:59-61 Freund, F, Staple A, Scoville J, 2001, "Organic protomolecule assembly in igneous minerals" PNAS, 98:2142-2147 Krishnamurthy R, Arrhenius G, Echenmoser A, 1999, "Formation of glycolaldehyde phosphate from glyceraldehyde in aqueous solution", Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 29:333-354 Mulkidjanian Y, Cherepanov DA, Galperin MY, 2003, "Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light" BMC Evol Biol. 3:12 This one's pretty cool. They used high-intensity UV light as an energy source (sort of like what was expected in the absence of ozone in the early atmosphere) to provide a high selection pressure that actually stimulated the formation of oligonucleotides. Are you really this unaware of the research being done on this subject? One suggestion if you are going to use quotes that are borrowed from another poster or another thread is to provide the title of the thread it was under and a little of why the quotes were used in support of the topic. However since you have provided a link we can discuss how it does not represent “natural processes” as the poster claims that it is. And it won’t be found – simply because life can not and did not arise spontaneously. So far you keep making this assertian but you have failed to make a convincing argument for it. Of course based on what is observed in the natural world now, and no wishful thinking of what does not occur. By the way how much progress has the evolutionist camp made in confirming their theories? Here is a requote of how three of the twenty amino acids found in present day cells decompose easily during the process of proteinoid (theorized to have been precursors to present day proteins) formation. Maybe the first replicators didn't use these three amino acids? Are you speaking from authority again or is it based on what is actually observed? More research into evolutionary nonsense? No thanks, I’d rather stick with real science. If you don't want to learn about evolution, then why are you here? To proselytise? But, of course, if you don't understand or know about a subject that you are trying to refute you just seem silly. I really suggest that you read the links provided and do some learning on these topics. I could careless about what is currently the most popular theory to prove what is not provable – because I already have the truth in that life was created – as real science confirms. And what if it isn’t? Even according to current evolutionary research - little or no advancement has been made towards proving abiogenesis – sure there are more theories than ever, all with something in common as they are supported with little or no observable, repeatable evidence. The only thing evident is that current scientific wishful thinking become myths of the past (as is always the case). Remember, you have set yourself the task of showing how abiogenesis is impossible, or at least unreasonable. It's a pretty difficult task to prove a negative. It's even more difficult when you can't even answer any of the refutations of your first arguments. And what are some of those refutations may I ask that has not been addressed? I would have noticed them. I object to what you have presented because what you have presented was either irrelevant to the discussion or because it shows an unawareness of the scientific research being done. Then why not discuss the results of the research being done and not simply make wishful thinking that they have found a solution. Remember, you are trying to prove that abiogenesis is unreasonable. To counter, I don't need to give an answer to a question; all I have to do is point out that an answer is possible. Of course not, it would seem that many would rather dwell on the wishful thinking of men rather than acknowledge that life was created as real science shows us. For example, you stated that racemic mixtures are a problem. Do I know how this was overcome? No, but I linked to an article that demonstrates that an answer is possible. You maintain that it is impossible for long polypeptides to form. Yet you seem unaware that even if the concentrations are small, by scaling up the volume, it is possible for some lengthy polypeptides to form naturally. You seem unaware of scenarios (based on actual scientific research) that could give rise to organic replicators, for example catalytic mineral surfaces. And so forth. And so forth, and so forth. I don’t doubt that there are many empty theories to address the issue of life from no life, but you expect too much hominid. The fact remains there is little proof than any of the theories proposed have or will solve the problem. Myths are invented everyday (and discarded every other day) to explain away the origin of life - simply to avoid having to face the reality of a Creator. What worries me is not that I am not up to date on current evolutionary theories on the origin of life less I be unable to defend my position because I already have the truth - and it is that God did create. So reading such research is but a waste of time and simply an endeavor in futility – as they incorporate very much science fiction and very little science fact. Honestly hominid, the bottom line between the creation/evolution debate is that man determines his own destiny if he is the result of chance or that God determines man’s destiny if man was created. Again, you have set yourself a very difficult task: showing that abiogenesis is improbable. And you are trying to do this with no knowledge of the scientific research in this field, or even what the proponents are even saying. I'm also unimpressed so far with your command of basic chemistry. Of course it is, for the belief in life from no life is deeply rooted in philosophy as oppose to real science. ---------------------------------------- If you were to ask me the question as to who has the most evidence for the origin of life - creationists or evolutionists, I would say that neither - since we all live in the same universe and look at the same evidence. SLP said: I would too. Well, actually first I would correct you. You see, 'evolutionists' by and large do not care about abiogenesis. So you mean that all those grants, costly experiments and wasted time spent on origin of life research really shows us they don’t care about it – really now no one is that gullible! Maybe that is why evolution will remain the science fiction it always has. Often creationists have been called intellectually dishonest when they talk about science – the study of God’s creation (creationist’s meaning of science) and God’s Truth at the same time. Simply by the fact that they believe in God. Actually, the fact that creationists in general have a long and sordid history of misquoting, quoting out of context, and outright lying is probably why they have this reputation. Perhaps because there was no context to begin with. So if anyone disagrees with your evolutionary conclusions – than they are a liar, than I must be a liar than to say that design demands a designer, even when real science confirms this? It’s always convenient to call some one a liar when they don’t agree with you isn’t it? However lets back up our accusations rather than simply make them. Of course you should realize that I made no claims that I was absolutely right, only that the evidence for abiogenesis leaves very little room for true useful science but much more for unverifiable speculations and empty theories. There is a difference however about my conclusions than what you would like us to believe in that I see reality and include the possibility of what I do not know – where logic tells me that it is more reasonable to think the way I do so therefore it must have been – but you on the other hand have already ruled out that part of the equation and therefore are simply dreaming up conclusions that neither fit the data or what logic tells you. However it is much more complicated than what you have concluded that creationists are liars. As I know the consequences if I were to bare false witness, if I am really the Christian that I claim to be. Even if a dead man were to come back from the dead in front of our eyes and told us that God is real and we will be held accountable to everything that we do, how many do you think will believe? Not very many I predict, for the heart of man is desperately wicked and willingly ignorant of the truth of God and will find any and all excuses not to believe, because it is in his nature to rebel and reject the truth about his creator. By the way SLP what version of science do you work with? Real science or science fiction? So far you’ve shown me nothing of real science (and I predict the rest of your responses) other than what you can regurgitate from yours and others objections of observable evidence with no support and then make bold claims that creationists are liars - because what I say is not the accepted belief of the majority of the "intellectually elite"? Or could it be that what was presented forces you to logically consider the inevitability of the conclusions drawn which point to a Creator - so you adamantly object no matter how absurd your version of science becomes and still consider it science? Only through highly advanced, intelligently controlled processes can these two forms be separated. Not entirely true. Circularly polarized light has produced left-handed organics on meteors. Yes of course circularly polarized light, that theory was thrown out some time ago – as it was simply a circular argument. And left handed organics? What resemblance if any do these “organics” have to even the simplest protein? However lets look at circularly polarized light. Yes – circular polarized light or CPL is a chiral phenomenon as the electric field does rotate along the beam of light. What was observed by the researchers of this phenomenon was that substances which are homochiral have different absorption rates for left and right circularly polarized light as noted in: - Cotton, F.A. and Wilkinson, G., 1980. Advanced Inorganic Chemistry: a Comprehensive Text. 4th Edition, p.669–676. This fact was perhaps expanded on by origin of life researchers to bankruptly explain away the homochirality problem. This is because when CPL is absorbed it does destroy one type of amino acid more readily than the other through a process known as photolysis. What seems to have been overlooked was that CPL which was absorbed by the enantiomers or left and right pairs not only destroys the “right” form, it also destroys to a certain extent the “left” or needed form which all known life is composed of. Could this process have been what produced the necessary 100 % homochirality required for life that exists today? Belavoine and Kagan had one of the best results derived through this process in which they managed to produce a 20 % optically pure camphor. What seems to have been ignored was that close to 99% of the initial material had been destroyed in the process. Theoretically according to their research a 35.5 % purity of the same substance would mean that a 99.99 % of the initial substance must have been destroyed! - Belavoine, G., Moradpour, A. and Kagan, H.B., 1974. Preparation of Chiral Compounds with High Optical Purity by Irradiation with Circularly Polarised Light. J Amer. Chem. Soc., 96:5152–58, 1974. Through such a process – perhaps an optically pure compound could have been obtained - at the point where there is no material left! A defiance of all astronomical odds you might say, which by the way only happens in fairy tales, not in real life. One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 1 in 10^67 against even a small protein forming – by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (many times longer than the assumed age of the earth). What do mathematicians generally agree about such odds? That, statistically speaking, any odds beyond 1 in 10^50 have a zero probability of ever happening. Imagine that! Was this 'chemist' IL Cohen? Cohen is actually a mathematician. Yes, of course biologists do have an innate ability to defy astronomical odds that mathematicians know cannot be overcome – just by imagining it to have happened! I read his book, and he makes the same laughable errors that all non-biologists make when using numbers to 'disprove' evolution: They fail to apply the numbers in an intelligent fashion. It would seem that biologists are the only ones to have convinced themselves that natural processes on its own can account for all the mechanisms and machinery necessary for life. When this very minute an engineer is very hard at work at designing, planning, testing, and redesigning his own version of life’s machinery. Have the biologists stumbled on to something that the engineers have not? What you are saying then is that calculations, measurements and formulations are not needed to design anything? The only engineers that work on that bases that I know are unemployed ones. The very fact that birds can fly speaks volumes about a designer who knew about the physics of flight. And the fact that the eye can see says much about a designer who knew something about optics. And what about the human brain? Was it the result of natural unguided processes as evolution tell us and says nothing about a designer who knew something about computing? The only real laughter I hear are the engineers who are laughing at the biologists for their ignorance of the intelligent input required to bring about the very instruments they are using to prove their point that no intelligence was required. For starters, look at what you wrote: "odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means" "Necessary"? Necessary for what? For an extant protein to be made from scratch all at once? Necessary - for the first organism to become life. But before we begin lets lets define what is considered life as we know it so we have a starting point: 1. Is able to metabolize through ATP, ADP and AMP processes. 2. Uses an information or coded system to assemble itself, direct metabolism and reproduce. 3. Reproduces using an information storage and retrieval system. 4. Builds and maintains a semi permeable cell membrane used to selectively take in nutrients and excrete waste. Can you find a single person (other than creationist propagandists) that claims that any such thing may have happened? Exactly my point – none whatsoever has ever happened! When you start out with erroneous assumptions, you get erroneous results. When you start with intelligent input you get a machine. When you start with chance you get no machine! Now go experiment. GIGO “?” Now here is a question. How long do you think it will be before the puzzle will form itself into the complete picture of the Mona Lisa? never. Why you may ask? If the box is shaken long enough you might get an equilibrium where two or three pieces fall into place slightly but without them snapping together tightly the constant shaking will cause it to break apart again and thus so on. Now here is a question. Are the cardboard puzzle pieces capable of interacting at the molecular level with one another? Self-replicaitng? No? So, what is you point? The point was to show that life from no life through unguided natural processes is a myth. The analogy simply represents one of the many proposed paths believed to have been taken to the assembly of the first life. Any competent scientist knows that the reactions of life are very much like the puzzle pieces that cannot be snapped together. The fact that enzymes function on the basis of snapping together and snapping apart proves a very important point. Actually, any competent scientist would know how enzymes really work... So how do enzymes work, as I am clueless? As if they were designed to work perhaps or is the look of design in all of biology a delusion/illusion as evolutionist have hypothesized? What are the chances of DNA molecules which are crucial to all life evolving by natural processes and without any intelligent input from a designer? Virtually impossible. Can you please provide your math for this conclusion? Also, please provide the basis for your constraints and assumptions. So have you made one so far in your own lab from basic substances, under any and all “controlled processes” lately? I didn’t think so. So you say what you or trained scientists can’t do, chance can? Um hum. Now if you think this could of came by chance you obviously need psychiatric help. Really? But believing in talking asses and snakes is in the realm of the utterly sane? With God all things are possible. According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old, and there are fewer than 10^18 seconds in 30 billion years. I think you mean cosmologists/physicists. No, I meant evolutionary cosmologists and evolutionary physicists. Even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one celled animal by trial and error would still be rather quite improbable! What does this mean then? Yes, what does this mean? It means that Crusader either does not understand what evolution entails or is purposly distorting it. Which is it? It means that evolution is a myth. That the probabilities favor the idea that an intelligent designer (God) was responsible for even the simplest DNA molecules. The probablilities are that Crusader cannot exist. Yet he does. So much for probability arguments... No, Crusadar exists, just as SLP does because they were created by God, just as everything else was, and one day we will account for ourselves before our creator. I hope you have a very good excuse other than the fact that you can’t believe in God because you found no evidence – and obviously you seem to be convinced that God doesn’t exist because you really have all the answers – just by the superior way you demolished my arguments – NOT!. We now know that science has produced stronger evidence against life having arisen as a result of unguided random processes, but through careful thought and design. Evolution is more than just a faulty theory it is a belief system - origins without God, life without meaning and purpose, pain and suffering without an answer and ultimately moral conduct without retribution. It is simply another excuse to turn away from God and His final judgment. Odd how God's biggest cheerleaders so readily distort the 'opposition.' Must be their position is ini trouble? No proof of this I suppose other than your belief that it is. For if you believe in the survival of the fittest than you are apt to do what seems to be the strongest impulse within yourself - and if you will not be held accountable to anyone then that justifies your means. What utter *Holy Cow Pud, Batman*. I mean the fact that Crusader clearly does not know what survival of the fittest means. It would help your credibility is you understood what you attack, Crusader. It would also help if you were not so completely self-righteous and arrogant, not to mention insulting. How about I just quote you from the man who dreamt up the myth of evolution himself (actually he didn’t do it all on his own, but that is another topic). “A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them.” - The Origin of Species. Chapter 3: Struggle for Existence. Paragraph #5 by Charles Darwin Much like Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious serial killer, in an interview with Stone Phillips said: "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then — then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" Well, I guess evolution must be wrong because a psychotic didn't understand it any better than you do... Ad hominem. It is the fact that I understand evolution thus the reason it is rejected. It is the fact that evolution is very much based on philosophy rather than real science hence even Karl Popper, a science philosopher and an evolutionist himself admits in his autobiography Unended Quest. “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program - a possible framework for testable scientific theories .... This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” Dahmer was no psycho, he was very sane - he was simply being consistent with his faith of evolution. If you would read further into the interview you will note what he later said toward the end of the interview when Phillips asked whether Dahmer thought family problems caused his condition in a decade when criminals cloak guilt with victimhood, Dahmer's answered: "I feel it's wrong for people who commit crimes to try to shift the blame to someone else, onto their parents, or onto their upbringing or living circumstances. I think that's just a cop-out. I take full responsibility." Mind you that real science is usable, repeatable, and testable - not fairy tales supported by nothing more than wishful thinking. So you are admitting outright that creationism is not science. Thats a start. So what part should we throw out from the creationist camp? Any suggestions? Since much of creationist arguments center on the idea that design demands a designer, should we throw away all our use of intelligence in designs and work on the evolutionist model of no design? Should we also abandon all the technological advances earned through hard work and intelligent input in favor of unguided natural processes? That would be an absurdity of the highest form coming from a scientist such as yourself. Now let’s look at my problematic assertions. Realize of course that ignorance of mathematical odds do not make the impossible probable. Correct. However, ignorance of what should be accounted for in the calculations of the odds does not mean that tossing out some confabulated big numbers to fool the uninformed proves that the improbable is impossible. When you have won the lottery ten times in a row then come back and we will talk about the odds. But instead of arguing what is observed to occur – speciation or variations within a given kind – lets look at even before the simplest of life can even begin to mutate and grow in complexity – for Perhaps that is why abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution? - without the first life there is no mutation or natural selection of any kind, is there? On the contrary, evolution not only requires life to arise via abiogenesis - it demands it. Something which has never occurred nor will it ever. Assuming however that it is true that life came to be by itself - it goes against all the known laws of nature! A good biochemist will tell you that life is not merely basic substances mixed together. Life requires highly organized precise processes in order to sustain and reproduce itself. So apart from the fact that simple machines (let alone von Neumann machines) cannot arise unguided, the theory of evolution would take someone with much more faith to believe since that would be an even greater miracle in the making since it excludes the miracle maker. If you'd read your own words, you might find that you have answered some of your own questions... If you had bothered to read it you might find an answer. Thank you. I hope this turns out to be a productive discussion unlike the other forums I have been to. Had you considered that bursting onto a board "knowing" that evolution is all wrong and explaining that you are here to explain it to the illiterate masses, not to mention equating evolutionists with serial killers, might help explain why you may not have been welcomed with opened arms and brotherly love? What in the world gave you the impression that I equate evolutionists with serial killers? Really SLP, your ad homs are becoming tiresome, if you have no evidence to support your pontifications other than accusations then don’t bother to respond. Your assumptions are correct in that I am a student of science and am familiar with evolutionary theory Well, that was not his assumption, and frankly, from what you have written I would say that you are at best only shallowly familiar with evolution. ad hominem. Your 'survival of the fittest' gaffe is a case in point... Another ad hominem, you just love throwing dirt don’t you SLP? It seems you are losing your ground. Should I throw some dirt back at your way as well? What I was pointing out is the fallacy of any argument that is already based on presuppositions that cannot be logically reasoned out nor does not fit the data. What about YOUR presuppositions? Do they not taint your examination of the evidence? Do they fit the data? I dare say not, for if they did, the baraminologists would not have had to discard data ... That life was the result of design as design is evident in all that we see. What confirms this is that man himself designs – of course man will never reach the level of his creator, but the absurdity of attributing what He himself cannot do all to an unguided process? Is that really science? What they did prove was nothing of how basic substances could have assembled itself into life but that it would require not only the defiance of astronomical odds but that impassable barriers need crossing before any combination of these basic substances can be considered life. Perhaps that is because that is not what they set out to do? Your strawman is dust... And from dust God did create man. And what experimental methods may I ask were used that can be repeated and tested that can confirm this? Every test known to have been done by such methods have resulted in a racemic gunk that is useless in the synthesis of life. Can you perhaps point to some repeatable tests that have been done on creationist hypotheses? Thanks. Lets look again at the creationist formula for life and the evolutionist formula Creationist: matter + energy + time + “I” (intelligence, information, input) = life/machines Evolutionist: matter + energy + time = life/machines Now how much are you willing to put down that the evolutionist formula is not what scientists are using even at this very moment? What is being disagreed on is how such changes can occur where there is no method or means of retaining the increases of complexity required for evolution to occur. Do increases in complexity always require increases in information? Lets look at the simpler life form of the bacteria haemophilus influenzae (the bacteria known to cause pneumonia and meningitis) which has a genome well over three times that of mycoplasma gentitalium. I’ll let you figure which is more complex and therefore is more harmful to its host. Also, are you familiar with Kimura's early work on information? Kimura, Mooto or Motoo? Was he a Japanese biologist? Only vaguely about some mutations being neutral. What relevance if any does this have to do with abiogenesis when the first life cannot even be accounted for yet? I thought you were familiar with science? Real science SLP, not evolutionary myth. there is plenty of evidence that the earth is much more than 6000 years old. Haven’t seen any yet. Hominid originally said: Perhaps. My basic urges tell me to be nice to people, to help them, and to avoid harming them. Or the conscience that a wise Creator has placed in you to know the difference between good and evil? Now where was this 'wise creator' when those 30-odd victims of Dahmer needed him? What a profound question? We have some resentment towards God don’t we? And the answer is - the same place He was when His Son Jesus was crucified. And thus I respond that the entire post points out the circumventing that has been done to sweep under the rug the logic that life from no life is an is possible when in reality it is an impossibility to the highest degree - What was it you wrote earlier? Denial at work? My own words, how original! Of course there is no evidence to support that it is possible is there other than the scientifically baseless assertions you have just made? Well now we seem to be at the end of your responses. Lets do a review of your most insightful responses to see if there is a predictable pattern. “Actually, the fact that creationists in general have a long and sordid history of misquoting, quoting out of context” “I thought you were familiar with science?” “ It would help your credibility is you understood what you attack, Crusader. It would also help if you were not so completely self-righteous and arrogant, not to mention insulting.” “Actually, any competent scientist would know how enzymes really work...” “… from what you have written I would say that you are at best only shallowly familiar with evolution. Your 'survival of the fittest' gaffe is a case in point...” “ Well, I guess evolution must be wrong because a psychotic didn't understand it any better than you do...” Well what do you know, all ad hominems! Sure I probably took your responses out of context, but how did I manage do that when there was no context for it to be taken from?
|
|||
| BACK | |||
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelations 4:11 KJV
about site | artworks | e-books | feedback | homepage | links | site map | writings |
|||