The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: rnaa

yayyy, Jack Szostak's 'soap bubbles' story, was waiting for that one to show up. You people are so endearing:



The video you shared is filled to the brink with illogical fiction and storytelling, and incredibly deceptive ways of hiding what they've actually been experimenting on with technical jargon and fancy animations of things they made up and never bothered to test for. And beefing up useless non-functional strings of polymers to pretend you've actually got an organism that can reproduce and pass on anything to the next generation for the purpose of evolving and going through all the transactions/changes depicted in the mythological animations.

And it's so telling again that people swallow it like chocolate cookies without any discernment whatsoever, look at the viewcount numbers for that nonsensical mythological video. People love their myths/false stories (2 Timothy 4:3,4, Matthew 7:13,14).

And of course keeping people in the dark regarding what type of machinery are actually minimally required for a reproducing organism. Just keep on fantasizing about so-called "simpler lifeforms" (more proposed pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters for which no evidence is given regarding their existence, or even possible existence, just based on wishful thinking that it was more 'simple' otherwise the evolutionary storyline falls apart).

And before you fall back on your erronuous misleading argumentation that "evolution" doesn't adress "abiogenesis" (or variations on that argument) I already shared a video debunking that misinformation. Next to that I can mention that famous and prominent evolutionary philosophers Haldana & Oparin referred to it as "the chemical evolution theory of life", and they're not the only ones (given their prominence in the community of evolutionary philosophers). From wikipedia on the page for abiogenesis:

"Primordial soup" hypothesis
...
There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.[80] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution,...
The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.

And don't try to cop-out by saying they just mean "change over time" there. The capitalizations on the ambiguity of language are already bad enough in what I quoted from wikipedia where Eigen and Spiegelman are pretending that a sticky molecule that encounters another sticky molecule and they get stuck to eachother, is somehow replicating itself (an argument already used in this thread as well and perhaps also in the Szostak video, allthough I'd have to check again if they use the word "replication", polymerization is not replication, neither is it paricularly interesting in discussions about the origin of life that molecules can end up sticking to eachother, especially if you plan ahead in a lab to make them stick together).

The "chemical" 'change over time' "theory of life"? Nah, that doesn't work for me, clearly they are referring to some other meaning for the word "evolution" there.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.

The debate moderators in that forum decide the rules. If you're serious, I will (or you can) get in touch with them.
I can do weekend on ATS - right now I'm in PST but will be in EST and then CET so we need to set a date that's convenient for both. Is it just you or is Neo going to debate as well?

Take a look at this debate website - should probably be formatted similarly.
www.debate.org...

originally posted by: rnaa

The word "evolution" specifically and exactly means 'change over time'. That is the precise and unambiguous meaning of the word.

I appreciate your attempt to simplify such ambiguous semantics, but you won't be able to, ever (because its a sham theory).

If evolution simply means change over time, then that means I evolve when I go up to higher altitudes, from the biochemical alterations that occur to adjust to the varying oxygen levels. Surely that is not evolution.

If it means change over time then that means when Japheth migrated north through the Caucus mountains, giving rise to the Caucasian skin tone, then you are also saying that this is evolution, which surely, it is not.

originally posted by: rnaa

What in bloody blue blazes would lead you to the conclusion that the first living 'thing' was anything resembling a 'modern' cell? That is just crazy talk, and leads to your absolutely mind-boggling misunderstanding of what the initial living 'things' would have been like.

You show a video that says the original cell was not a modern day eukaryotic cell... of course it wasn't. Surely this hogwash theory proposed it was a simple bacteria, yet even the simplest of bacteria would require the following to be viable:

1) reproduction (without it, there will be no more)
2) translation (without it, you can't make nucleic acid chains required for 1-7 on this list)
3) transcription (without it, you can't make proteins required for 1-7 on this list)
4) regulation (helter skelter action could never survive enough generations until a favorable mutation rendered it regulated)
5) encapsulation (needs separation from external environment)
6) transportation (proteins and nucleic acid chains movement requires signaling)
7) metabolism (ATP is required for most of these processes)

^All these traits are exhibited even in the simplest living prokaryotic unicellular organisms. This page contains a nice diagram: Simplest possible microbe

originally posted by: cooperton

If evolution simply means change over time, then that means I evolve when I go up to higher altitudes, from the biochemical alterations that occur to adjust to the varying oxygen levels. Surely that is not evolution.

Well, the biological definition of evolution is more technically known as a shift in allele distribution/frequencies within a population. Take that for what it's worth.

originally posted by: cooperton
1) reproduction (without it, there will be no more)
2) translation (without it, you can't make nucleic acid chains required for 1-7 on this list)
3) transcription (without it, you can't make proteins required for 1-7 on this list)
4) regulation (helter skelter action could never survive enough generations until a favorable mutation rendered it regulated)
5) encapsulation (needs separation from external environment)
6) transportation (proteins and nucleic acid chains movement requires signaling)
7) metabolism (ATP is required for most of these processes)

^All these traits are exhibited even in the simplest living prokaryotic unicellular organisms. This page contains a nice diagram: Simplest possible microbe

May I ask why are you so certain that these mechanisms all needed to evolve at the same time? I guess what I'm asking is what did you read that lead you to think any of those can't exist without any other? Or that they couldn't have evolved one mechanism, then another, then another, and so on... I'm just asking because this seems to be the nexus of your argument here.

(and ps I got your pm)

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

Well, the biological definition of evolution is more technically known as a shift in allele distribution/frequencies within a population. Take that for what it's worth.

Which is interesting because surely allele distribution in a population is real - if dark-skinned people are mating you'll get a population with darker skin; if shorter people were to start selectively mating with each other, you'd get shorter people. Yet I don't think these mechanisms could be responsible for various kinds of creatures - allele distribution works so well because all the necessary coding was already in place with homeostatic harmony; adaptations (population and individual) were encoded in creatures to allow adaptability to various environments (pocketing a potential for adaptation makes no sense according to evolutionary theory, yet we see it consistently).

1) reproduction (without it, there will be no more)
2) translation (without it, you can't make nucleic acid chains required for 1-7 on this list)
3) transcription (without it, you can't make proteins required for 1-7 on this list)
4) regulation (helter skelter action could never survive enough generations until a favorable mutation rendered it regulated)
5) encapsulation (needs separation from external environment)
6) transportation/signaling (proteins and nucleic acid chains movement requires signaling)
7) metabolism (ATP is required for most of these processes)

^May I ask why are you so certain that these mechanisms all needed to evolve at the same time? I guess what I'm asking is what did you read that lead you to think any of those can't exist without any other? Or that they couldn't have evolved one mechanism, then another, then another, and so on... I'm just asking because this seems to be the nexus of your argument here.

(and ps I got your pm)

"1 - reproduction" because if it can't reproduce, this one will be the last. "2 - translation" because you need nucleic acid chains to code for proteins which are required for all 7 processes. "3 - transcription" because you need proteins for all 7 of these processes. "4 - regulation" you could argue that the protocell could survive without regulation, but it would not last very long at all, especially not long enough to mutate a beneficial mutation to generate said regulatory mechanisms. "5 - encapsulation" because you need separation from the environment and compartmentalization of the various components of the cell (such as for proton gradient to generate ATP). "6 - transport/signaling" This gets taken for granted, but the proteins, nucleic acids, etc, need signaling and transport along the cytoskeleton (forgot about cytoskeleton, you need that too for transport). "7 - metabolisms" is required for all processes, because without an energy source, its an inert organism and most proteins can't function.

We could call this super-mutation the God mutation, or just admit that there was intelligent agency involved in the becoming of life that generated organisms that already had these necessary mechanisms - from bacteria to humans, they were all created with these processes working synchronously, because the component parts without the complete whole are inviable.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.

Well are you up to a debate or not? The other guy didn't answer so I'll take that as a no.

If you're not, just say so and we'll be done with it.

Thanks

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Consider the word "interdependency" (in relation to their overall functionality within the "system", see video further below for an explanation regarding the term "system"):



You can think now for a moment about neoholographic's mention of the Lac operon and repressors, etc (and that video about the Lac operon, which is a DNA sequence that is interdependent on or with the genes it is acting on and with the overall regulation of the digestive system).
Then consider the word "interactome":



Then have a look at all the interactions and interdependency of proteins and protein complexes within a unicellular yeast cell, an organism that has been on this earth for a very long time (not an imagined mythological so-called "simple" or "simpler" ancestor that no one has observed or experimented with, but still wants to tell stories about):



And in the video below you might notice the usage of the word "interdependent" and what else is required to get the functionality for survival and reproduction out of the interdependent machinery of the entire system that makes up a living reproducing organism. It also discusses the definition for life. This is based on a chapter from a biology book. Just remember that what he says regarding the interdepency of cells within a multi-cellular organism, also counts for the molecular machines and their parts within unicellular organisms, with which I'm referring to protein complexes/enzymes and proteins (also organelles, which are made up of proteins). He does mention their interdepency, just doesn't use that particular word when discussing unicellular organisms, he uses different words to emphasize how they function, "work together":



Remember that these components lose their overall function in the cell if their counterparts are not present as well, they function together and are useless to the organism on their own. The so-called self-replicating RNA that Phantom423 brought up in an earlier comment isn't going to do squat in regards to reproducing and maintaining the organism in a natural environment; not in a lab where engineering techniques are used to make the RNA do what the researchers want, so they have something to tell stories about, even if they have to add the nucleotides to their mix themselves and keep everything unwanted out of their experiment that would brake down the RNA and would be present in the suggested hydrothermal vents scenario that rnaa put forward with his Szostak video, hydrolysis is a fact that constantly gets ignored in these stories (what's mentioned below also counts for Phantom423's RNA World story erronuously referred to as a hypothesis even though it doesn't qualify as one):



Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?
:

n fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.*

* = No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

This is what jsm318 mysteriously (with a lot of useless technical jargon to beguile and confuse the unobservant reader or layman, I've seen people trying to make fun of me by pretending I just don't understand the "science" and that it's not their job to explain everything when they're making comments about this, or they do this to others; this happens especially when I'm pointing out this is being done to beguile and confuse or be vague to obscure the main issue with your proposed myth) referred to as:

Photosynthetic plants and algae would not be here today without the ancient event whereby a heterotrophic eukaryotic organism engulfed and retained a photosynthetic cyanobacterium. This is evolution, supported with an overwhelming amount of data.

That overwhelming amount of data apparently including "No experimental evidence...to show that such an event is [even] possible." Let alone that it did happen. Which is why I made my comment before even reading or remembering the above, I recognized the myth right away when reading the comment.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.

Well are you up to a debate or not? The other guy didn't answer so I'll take that as a no.

If you're not, just say so and we'll be done with it.

Thanks

spoiler alert: its a waste of your time.

Evolution debate

Another evolution debate

ANOTHER evolution debate

Yet another evolution debate

Wait, again? Seriously?

....*sigh*

this is an exercise of pride for some members, they derive satisfaction from frustrating you and others. now that i have posted the links here, i imagine we can just let the willing educate themselves on the matter. the rest will not be moved no matter what lengths you go to.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Consider the word "interdependency"...
Then have a look at all the interactions and interdependency of proteins and protein complexes within a unicellular yeast cell, an organism that has been on this earth for a very long time (not an imagined mythological so-called "simple" or "simpler" ancestor that no one has observed or experimented with, but still wants to tell stories about)

The holistic nature of all organisms demonstrates that the various components could not have evolved one at a time, because complete machinery is required to function. Even if multiple genes could all mutate synchronously, this would mean that the prior genes that acted as the template for this multi-faceted mutation would no longer work! It's time to dismiss this obsolete dogma, but honestly I'd settle for the evo-pawns to stop chauvinistically behaving as if its logical, let alone infallible.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Well are you up to a debate or not?

I would need the ability to post whenever, I wouldn't be able to put aside a set day. What exactly would the debate be regarding? Age of earth? plausibility of evolution? I honestly think we cover most of this in the regular threads anyway, so a separate debate platform may be erroneous.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Debate? Give me the time and the place. It's about time one of you (or all of you - doesn't matter to me), steps up to the plate and presents your evidence.

Come up with some stipulations of victory. What determines the winner? Voting from observers would be too biased, unless we got a group of undecided people (regarding evo or ID). Or is it simply a mental exercise?

You name the time and the place. I'll be there.

West end of the reflecting pool in Washington DC at noon would be regal enough. ATS forum on a weekend might be the most convenient though.

Well are you up to a debate or not? The other guy didn't answer so I'll take that as a no.

If you're not, just say so and we'll be done with it.

Thanks

spoiler alert: its a waste of your time.

Evolution debate

Another evolution debate

ANOTHER evolution debate

Yet another evolution debate

Wait, again? Seriously?

....*sigh*

this is an exercise of pride for some members, they derive satisfaction from frustrating you and others. now that i have posted the links here, i imagine we can just let the willing educate themselves on the matter. the rest will not be moved no matter what lengths you go to.

Well those are really discussions. I'm proposing a formal debate.

Neo was the one who used the "D" word - so I asked him if he wanted to engage in a formal debate. No reply. I take that to be a no.

Coop also posted a response to the debate proposition. No answer from him either. Not taking that as a no yet.

The point is that in a formal debate, participants have to fulfill certain criteria several of which are listed below:



The obvious problem with 19 pages of discussion is that no one is required to include evidence for their opinion. And as we know, very little evidence is ever posted by the other side.

A moderated debate brings all parties to the table with the same rules. Participants don't make the rules. The moderators make the rules.

These threads are a mass of confusion. That's why I created the ATS library. No new knowledge is gained in these threads and whenever real research is posted via citations, it is conveniently ignored. This is how Creationists et al are trained to respond to the science - confusion, distraction, off topic, ignore. A formal debate will not allow anyone to do this.

originally posted by: cooperton
It seems you are struggling with the theory you claim to know so well... RNA is theorized, according to popular evolutionary theory, to have preceded the advent of DNA. But in your defense, it's all wrong anyway

Coop, just give it up already. First, this has nothing to do with my post, second you know nothing about any type of science. RNA coming before DNA is part of ABIOGENESIS not evolutionary theory. Is it even possible for you to post without blatant lies? Jesus would not be happy with you.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Where's the examples of random mutations adding new information and function to the genome?

LMAO! It's called the INSERTION mutation. Do some research, for the love of god. When you change the codes in a genetic sequence it can change the function. DNA is complex, but understanding evolution is not rocket science. New mutations do not always give new function, BTW. Sometimes it takes several neutral mutations accumulating before new functions arise. That is one of the oldest questions in the book.

a reply to: Phantom423

Well those are really discussions. I'm proposing a formal debate.

here is your formal debate, featuring prominent members of both parties.

your efforts are admirable, but i promise you, this video is much more efficient than holding an evolution debate on this forum. watch a two hour video or add another circus act to the 250+ pages worth i linked above? i would say its a tough choice, but it really isnt.

originally posted by: Barcs
Coop, just give it up already. First, this has nothing to do with my post
second you know nothing about any type of science. RNA coming before DNA is part of ABIOGENESIS not evolutionary theory. Is it even possible for you to post without lies and deception? Jesus would not be happy with you.

hahaha you're a clown. You don't even know the foundations of your own circus theory.

The RNA world and the origins of Life

So yes, it is theorized that RNA organisms came first (thus crossing the abiogenesis gap) and then evolved into DNA organisms. Yet, even these (theoretical) simple RNA organisms still would have to contain "a complex network of RNA-mediated interactions".

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, I'm familiar with that hypothesis. What is your point? I never said anything against that. I said that EVOLUTION is NOT the origin of life. Try to keep up.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, I'm familiar with that hypothesis. What is your point? I never said anything against that. I said that EVOLUTION is NOT the origin of life. Try to keep up.

I never said evolution was the origin of life. You said:

RNA coming before DNA is part of ABIOGENESIS not evolutionary theory.

But RNA organisms evolving into DNA organisms would be considered evolution, not abiogenesis.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Because my comment was getting a bit long I feel I left out some evidence for some of the things I said and pointed towards regarding the subsection of "Cellular communication" in the video called "Chapter 7..." (I didn't want to put this video in there to distract from the rest of my comment, but it's useful to be aware of as he starts talking about that subject in relation to this thread and inductive reasoning on established facts). Just keep the word "interdependency" in mind (eventually in the evolutionary storyline you'll have to go from a unicellular to a multi-cellular organism anyway):



The link below puts it in the right context:

Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories

A reply to: cooperton
It's all about the cake, coop. Having it and eating it too.

a reply to: FamCore

One word - Cancer - Why would we be designed with such a huge flaw?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, I'm familiar with that hypothesis. What is your point? I never said anything against that. I said that EVOLUTION is NOT the origin of life. Try to keep up.

I never said evolution was the origin of life. You said:

RNA coming before DNA is part of ABIOGENESIS not evolutionary theory.

But RNA organisms evolving into DNA organisms would be considered evolution, not abiogenesis.

You are confusing 2 different hypotheses here. Abiogenesis and RNA World hypothesis are not the same thing, plus both are unverified and unproven in science. It could only be considered evolution if RNA already had most of those features, and then life slowly evolved so that the earlier simpler RNA eventually became the complex DNA we see today.

I tend to agree with that version, but the OP is talking about the emergence of certain features necessary for replication and evolution. This falls into the abiogenesis category.

He is not asking how RNA evolved into DNA, he's specifically referring to how certain features and functionality of RNA/DNA first emerged. Without the functions he refers to, evolution could not occur, so they couldn't be the results of evolution. Natural selection and environment pressure, sure. Evolution... no.