Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[jem]

Quote from stu:

How many times are you going to falsify what I actually said? As many times as you've misrepresented your mined scientist quotes?
In that way for one you proved yourself a liar Jem. That's a bit different to proving me one, to say the least.

Why don't you try and deal with what is actually being said and quite clearly meant, instead of imagining that if you can prove science falls short or is wrong by any means, even by false assertion, God does or even might exist?

That religious reasoning is really infantile and only makes you sound more and more ignorant.

I already proved you lied a couple of pages ago.
I notice you have not produced any proof of evolution from non life to life . Why not?

 

[jem]

Quote from Betapeg:

I had said there is a pathway which we simply don't completely understand just yet. You seem focused on the fact of our current lack of complete knowledge in this area to support an intelligent design point of view. Because to believe in intelligent design, one has to basically have a large gap in scientific knowledge so as to insert the "God did it" argument.



The evidence says something completely different. In fact, the processes which I posted for you are many times spontaneous reactions which self-organize its components into such things as amino acids.



A quote from a Nobel prize winner means nothing. Only evidence. I posted experimental data which supports assertions completely contrary to what you've been posting "No evidence of spontaneous terrestrial abiogenesis". Clearly, experimentally, there is evidence. Not a clear pathway but that's only because we haven't discovered it yet. Such data and evidence surpass any philosophical musing (from Nobel prize winners or anyone else) you've posted by a long-shot. I attempted to quote you nothing but experimental evidence but you're only response is to reject out of hand everything presented as "not a pathway". What is it then? It's pieces of a puzzle scientists are trying to piece together. Just because we haven't pieced everything together yet doesn't mean by default "intelligent design".

You can't dismiss the evidence of spontaneous creation of organic compounds by a simple wave of the hand. It's right there for you to examine. I couldn't make it any easier.

I am not sure if you are trolling or not. Why are you pulling that b.s. tactic of saying I am arguing for creationism on this thread. That is stu type tactic. Stick to what I am arguing.

organizing into amino acids is still a long way from saying these amino acids form together to create life.

2. I am not sure if you are being obtuse or not using the word pathway the way the nobel prize winner, sozstak used it.
He stated in 2009, science had not found a pathway from non life to life.

do you have proof of abiogensis. answer no.
do you have a pathway from non life to life. answer no.

If you did you would be a nobel prize winner.

 

[jem]

as I wrote this earlier in the thread... you all may wish to read this paper from mit.
It summarizes the current state of science and random chance.

Quote from jem:


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

I realize of course after dumping one false assertion after the other and ignoring all and any reasonable response to your nonsense , the only one you're going to have left is that false accusation of lying.

Reasonable factual substantive argument has been given to you, even if rather tersely at times by myself I admit (others have been more patient), in contrast to the utter ignorant misunderstanding and misrepresentation, misinterpretation and sometimes even downright deceit in the alteration of words themselves you say Nobel Prize winners have uttered, in order for you to declare what science understands.

It's a completely underhand mendacious attempt to discredit knowledge itself, in the effort to force a primitive and irrational personal belief forward.

What you and others like you do in the name of religion is no more than an insult to human consciousness and reasoning.

WOW, that is some really deep bull shit. Well done stewie.

 

[jem]

Quote from Lucrum:

WOW, that is some really deep bull shit. Well done stewie.

He is trolling with lies, while I produce quotes from prize winners, top scientists and papers like the one from MIT above.


All you have to understand is that there is no proof of life evolving from non life.

Somehow bozo keeps pretending there is an argument on this subject. There is none. There is no proof of abiogenesis. There are no known pathways from life to non life. (as of 2009 anyway).

 

[MakeNoMistake]

Quote from jem:

He is trolling with lies, while I produce quotes from prize winners, top scientists and papers like the one from MIT above.


All you have to understand is that there is no proof of life evolving from non life.

Somehow bozo keeps pretending there is an argument on this subject. There is none. There is no proof of abiogenesis. There are no known pathways from life to non life. (as of 2009 anyway).

We have here to highly unlikely scenarios:

1. life evolving from non life
2. man in the sky created life

And we have people supporting both sides saying "if it isn't one then it MUST be two!"

This is like saying "If you're wrong then I must be right!"

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

I am not sure if you are trolling or not. Why are you pulling that b.s. tactic of saying I am arguing for creationism on this thread. That is stu type tactic. Stick to what I am arguing.

If I was trolling, I'd just call you an idiot.

organizing into amino acids is still a long way from saying these amino acids form together to create life.

So they must have magically appeared out of nowhere?

2. I am not sure if you are being obtuse or not using the word pathway the way the nobel prize winner, sozstak used it.
He stated in 2009, science had not found a pathway from non life to life.

Philosophical musings mean nothing when compared to hard empirical experimental evidence, such as that I posted for you. I could care less if the guy had 10 Nobel Prizes. What experiments do you have to prove anything about what you're saying? So far, all you've posted in regards to quotes, are philosophical speculations devoid of any experimental validity. There is a pathway, several steps have been recreated in the laboratory, and scientists are diligently working hard to figure it ALL out.

do you have proof of abiogensis. answer no.
do you have a pathway from non life to life. answer no.

Yes, and yes. You're certainly free to arbitrarily dismiss the enormous amount of evidence regarding terrestrial abiogenesis. This is especially interesting...

In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called proteinoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'.

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/cou...fe/origins.html

The word "spontaneous" is striking. What does such "spontaneous" phenomenon tell you about the wider picture of the universe? Still fine-tuned?

If you did you would be a nobel prize winner.

So what do you have to propose? Fairies planting amino acids on the earth and using magic fairy dust to create all the animals, as is? You claim not to be a creationist but all your posts say the exact opposite. Help me out here. What are you claiming?

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:

WOW, that is some really deep bull shit. Well done stewie.

To you Loocrumb it's Lord stewie, who famously and appropriately said…..
"Fooking is one of those words you can fooking put anywhere in a fooking sentence , so as you've fooking obviously nothing to fooking contribute, would you please fooking do us all a fooking enormous favor and get busy by fucking off "

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I already proved you lied a couple of pages ago.

No you did not and you're being extremely untruthful in saying you did.

Quote from jem:
I notice you have not produced any proof of evolution from non life to life . Why not?

Why do you keep repeating that strawman line all the time?
Show me where exactly I ever said there is "proof of life from non life" or "proof of evolution from non life to life".

There is a mass of highly advanced scientific evidence as opposed to magic-ing it all from nowhere by an invisible creator wizard.
So which is it most likely going to be?

What is it that you cannot grasp about what was said that you have to distort it into something that wasn't said. Like you do with your "Nobel Prize quotes" all the time?
Bothered that abiogenesis threatens your beliefs?

Truth is Jem, when it comes down to matters where you involve your personal religious belief where it doesn't belong , you're being no more than a deceitful fraud .
Nothing you say on this subject is truthful and as the record shows, is often ignorant too.

 

[stu]

Quote from MakeNoMistake:

We have here to highly unlikely scenarios:

1. life evolving from non life
2. man in the sky created life

And we have people supporting both sides saying "if it isn't one then it MUST be two!"

This is like saying "If you're wrong then I must be right!"

It's not like saying that though, is it.

One is plausible the others not.
The plausible one will have a lot of fact and empirical evidence in support. Only one of those options has that.

As it's not 2. and it's not 'both sides', then the only likely scenario is going to be 1. life evolving from non life.