Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[jem]

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!"

1. is possible but we have no proof... they could change
2. is at the moment based on faith... perhaps supported by our universe looking extremely fine tuned.
3. you left this one out... life got here from somewhere else and did not evolve from non life on earth.





by the way... here is a link to a szostak interview...

about 5 minutes into the video they discuss the murchison meteor and what they found out about amino acids.

you can see they take pan spermia serious as the talk about the murchison meteor... having amino acids and that it is possible that metor materials create the "left handedness" of our amino acids.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-handedness-of-life

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

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


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.

you are troll.

I have told you many times... evolution does run contrary to my reading of the bible... because
1. there is nothing in there which says the earth is only 6000 years old. That was a calculation made by a monk hundreds of years ago.

2. time is relative and as things busted out of the big bang I presume some things were moving at close to the spend of light. hence a day to one observer could be a billion years to another.

3. Are you now agreeing there is no proof of life emerging from non life.

 

[jem]

Quote from Betapeg:

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



So they must have magically appeared out of nowhere?



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.



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?



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?

I have really no reason to argue.
It is an absolute fact there is no proof of abiogenesis.
I think you may be confusing amino acids with life.

If you think we have proof of abiogenesis... read the paper from MIT i just posted a few pages ago.

 

[peilthetraveler]

Come on....Let's use our common sense people. Here I will help you use it.

If I put a bunch of rocks, minerals and water in a room, lock it for a couple million years...do you really think there will be any animals (or humans)in that room when the door opens?

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

I have really no reason to argue.

I know, experimental evidence is practically impossible to argue against.

It is an absolute fact there is no proof of abiogenesis.

So you really are a creationist?

I think you may be confusing amino acids with life.

I showed you experimental evidence that many of the steps towards creating life have been recreated in the laboratory. Never did I say life actually arose out of a test tube. These experiments prove your assertion of no proof of abiogenesis absolutely flat out wrong. Otherwise, we wouldn't be creating the building blocks of life from inorganic matter in a laboratory.

If you think we have proof of abiogenesis... read the paper from MIT i just posted a few pages ago. [/B]

Like I said, philosophical musing and speculation mean nothing, when compared to experimentally acquired irrefutable evidence of abiogenesis.

 

[jem]

Quote from Betapeg:

I know, experimental evidence is practically impossible to argue against.



So you really are a creationist?



I showed you experimental evidence that many of the steps towards creating life have been recreated in the laboratory. Never did I say life actually arose out of a test tube. These experiments prove your assertion of no proof of abiogenesis absolutely flat out wrong. Otherwise, we wouldn't be creating the building blocks of life from inorganic matter in a laboratory.



Like I said, philosophical musing and speculation mean nothing, when compared to experimentally acquired irrefutable evidence of abiogenesis.

your quote...

"I showed you experimental evidence that many of the steps towards creating life have been recreated in the laboratory. Never did I say life actually arose out of a test tube. These experiments prove your assertion of no proof of abiogenesis absolutely flat out wrong. Otherwise, we wouldn't be creating the building blocks of life from inorganic matter in a laboratory."

that is not abiogenesis... it is a step towards showing a pathway from non life to life.

abiogenesis is life from inorganic matter. Not a step in the direction of life.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

Definition of ABIOGENESIS

: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
— abi·og·e·nist noun

finally betapeg... have you read the link I gave you to the MIT paper...

how can you still be arguing this.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

you are troll.

I have told you many times... evolution does run contrary to my reading of the bible... because
1. there is nothing in there which says the earth is only 6000 years old. That was a calculation made by a monk hundreds of years ago.

2. time is relative and as things busted out of the big bang I presume some things were moving at close to the spend of light. hence a day to one observer could be a billion years to another.

3. Are you now agreeing there is no proof of life emerging from non life.

Well let's see if I can play at this game of mis-quoting and misrepresenting....

You certainly did just say evolution does run contrary to your reading of the bible. So as a creationist you are now agreeing the Bible does state the earth is only 6000 years old and is flat.

Although there is little if any misquoting in what I said there, that's how you do it isn't it Jem.

Misinterpret misrepresent misquote misunderstand, just so long as you can make the futile suggestion that despite the facts, the evidence, the science to do with abiogenesis, there is still room for your imaginary creator.

It's you who wants to have that argument because your religion has nothing to do with one the thing that explains stuff, like how life could develop from inorganic matter, and why the earth ain't flat, and just about everything else.

Whereas your primitive beliefs of course can't do any of that. You're pissed at science because of it.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Come on....Let's use our common sense people. Here I will help you use it.

If I put a bunch of rocks, minerals and water in a room, lock it for a couple million years...do you really think there will be any animals (or humans)in that room when the door opens?

It's far more complicated than that. Such a misrepresentation of the chemistry involved is unfortunate on your part.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

that is not abiogenesis... it is a step towards showing a pathway from non life to life.

Otherwise known as proof that organic matter can arise spontaneously from inorganic matter. Glad we agree.

abiogenesis is life from inorganic matter. Not a step in the direction of life.

Steps which prove there is a pathway for abiogenesis. I really have no clue what you're trying to prove here.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

Definition of ABIOGENESIS

: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
— abi·og·e·nist noun

The experimental data I have posted for you detail some of the steps involved in this process. Unfortunately, not even experimental data can persuade you it's a very real process.

finally betapeg... have you read the link I gave you to the MIT paper...

how can you still be arguing this.

I did and I had said that philosophical speculation is interesting and everything. Thanks for the read. But such speculation is worthless without experimental data to support it. I feel I have provided such experimental data proving there is a pathway of abiogenesis, while you haven't posted anything but philosophical appeals to "common sense" and fallacious probability calculations.

What are you trying to prove? That aliens planted life on earth?

 

[seneca_roman]

"A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature."

Full:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Seneca