Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

YOU have been quoting a number on DNA half life. But you do not seem to understand that mtDNA is different to nuclear DNA. It is in a different environment (a mitochondrion is different to the nucleus of a cell). for one.

I quoted you information on mt DNA, so you did not read what I typed.

You've ignored the rest of what I said too. So again you don't understand the science.

The source that determined the 521 half-life was testing mitochondrial dna: mtDNA test 521 year half life.

Cherry picking a location much? Tell me neighbour where was the Moa sample found?

I picked that place because it was the closest city to the research site that had annual temperature data. The similar temperature maps for the two regions indicate the samples in Spain would have undergone similar conditions to the 521 mtDNA half-life measurement measured in New Zealand. This insists that the supposed missing links found in Sima De Los Huesos are not nearly as old as the researchers want them to be.

a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour do you know ANYTHING about how islands are different to continents? Or the local topography? OR how about the difference between the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans? Nope thought not. I've been to both places, they are NOT similar.

Again, you are cherry picking a bit of data you THINK supports you. Did you read the whole paper? OR perhaps (and I know the answer) you do not understand what a half life entails? Nope I bet you do not.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour do you know ANYTHING about how islands are different to continents? Or the local topography? OR how about the difference between the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans? Nope thought not. I've been to both places, they are NOT similar.

So what is the major climate difference that would have allowed 100's of thousands of years of discrepancy between the two locations? Temperature is close enough so it couldn't be that. Not water saturation either, Atapuerca gets about 30% less annual precipitation than the test area in New Zealand.

originally posted by: cooperton
Do you know where Spain and New Zealand are? Neither of them are in North America or Asia.

WOW! I never argued that, nice straw man. I showed you that simply being on the same latitude does not make the environmental conditions the same. Try to keep up.

proof? Empirical evidence only, no blogs or hear-say.

LOL! I knew it. You are denying the ice age.

The following is based on ice core data:

upload.wikimedia.org...

As you can see, the interglacial (warm)periods are much shorter than the glacial periods.

During the 2.5 million year span of the Pleistocene, numerous glacials, or significant advances of continental ice sheets in North America and Europe, have occurred at intervals of approximately 40,000 to 100,000 years. These long glacial periods were separated by more temperate and shorter interglacials.

We are in an interglacial period right now. Before this period started around 12,000 years ago, we were in a glacial period for almost 100,000 years. Before that an interglacial period that lasted around 30,000 years, and prior to that another 50K+ long glacial period, and the cycle repeats. So 3/4 of the last 200,000 years was during glacial periods, which explains why the DNA decay rate would be slower during a large amount of that time in that area.

Spain and New Zealand have very similar annual temperatures, so we can conclude that the 521 years is going to be very accurate for Spain as well, due to the similar annual temperatures.

NO. These areas both went through the glacial periods. That would obviously have an effect on the decay rate. The experiment was done in new zealand in today's environment. The specimens from Spain went through a long glacial period which would slow the rate down. Your denial here is ridiculous.

Can't wait to hear the next batch of excuses and deflections.

originally posted by: Barcs
We are in an interglacial period right now. Before this period started around 12,000 years ago, we were in glacial period for almost 100,000 years. Before that an interglacial period that lasted around 30,000 years, and prior to that another 50K+ long glacial period, and the cycle repeats.

So you're allowed to make these vast assumptions, yet I am not allowed to say that two geographic locations with similar temperatures would have experienced similar aging conditions? You have no objectivity.

From the ice core data. As you can see, the interglacial (warm)periods are much shorter than the glacial periods.

How do they determine the age of the ice? How do they account for subannular layers being formed and skewing the perceived age range that is speculatively determined from summer-winter oscillations?

NO. These areas both went through the glacial periods. That would obviously have an effect on the decay rate. The experiment was done in new zealand in today's environment. The specimens from Spain went through a long glacial period which would slow the rate down. Your denial here is ridiculous.

Yet the theorized ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years is enough time for 19 mtDNA half-lives. 19 half life iterations leaves you with 0.00019% of mtDNA bonds still intact. Yet the researchers in Atapuerca found very well preserved mtDNA. The science speaks for itself, the sample is not nearly as old as they think it is.

originally posted by: cooperton
So you're allowed to make these vast assumptions, yet I am not allowed to say that two geographic locations with similar temperatures would have experienced similar aging conditions? You have no objectivity.

LOLWHUT??? I directly cited ice core data and you call it assumptions???? This exactly corroborates what I said about you cherry picking which science you choose to support. You don't care what the research says unless it's something like DNA half life and you latch onto it as the be all end all when it fluctuates.

Yes, conditions vary on the same latitude. It depends how close you are to large bodies of water, the water and air currents, humidity, altitude, air flow, chemicals present etc etc. You keep over simplifying everything, proving you are completely clueless. You are a typical catch phrase / buzzword hunter.

Not sure why you are calling ice core data assumptions:

www.nature.com...

epic.awi.de...

www.nbi.ku.dk...

Yet the theorized ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. 10,000 years is enough time for 19 mtDNA half-lives. 19 half life iterations leaves you with 0.00019% of mtDNA bonds still intact. Yet the researchers in Atapuerca found very well preserved mtDNA. The science speaks for itself, the sample is not nearly as old as they think it is.

Did you look up the exact conditions and factor in the exact rate of decay for the specimen you are referring to? LOL, yes the science speaks for itself. YOU don't speak for the science. Read the data I posted.

Species don't change into anything else, and never have, or will, change into anything else.


All the available evidence proves this.


Facts are facts.

a reply to: turbonium1

You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the face dude

a reply to: cooperton

www.the-scientist.com...

This article explains the exact location of the samples you are talking about. At the end it explains:

The world’s oldest genome currently belongs to a horse that lived around 700,000 years ago. But this animal was buried in Siberian permafrost—ideal conditions for preserving DNA. Meyer’s success suggests that scientists can also extract DNA from fossils that come from a wider range of climates, including warm and humid ones. That is good news for scientists studying human evolution. “Humans have rarely been in permafrost environment. We’ve historically been a warm species,” said Reich. “A lot of the most interesting human material isn’t in cold places.”

But Meyer noted that Sima de los Huesos has very stable conditions, including little circulating air and constant temperatures of around 5°C to 10°C. “If permafrost is the perfect freezer, the cave is the perfect fridge,” he said. Still, Meyer doubts these conditions are unique, and his team are searching for similar places. These include caves that are very close to Sima de los Huesos, where possible fossils of Homo erectus and Homo antecessor have been found. “I hope we’ll find another magic site soon,” he said.

The devil is in the details, Coop.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Species don't change into anything else, and never have, or will, change into anything else.


All the available evidence proves this.


Facts are facts.

Translation of this post:

a reply to: cooperton
If you think about anything to long you can find holes in it. But not only does nothing in nature happen without some sort of plan and blueprint, I mean look at politics today, chances are they will be arguing over there ego and constituency for years and years to come before they decide on anything, in fact we may all be extinct by then.

Really what is that line about that these random mutations in nature even while happening over million of years may be true to an extent lead to us. But, Knowing the whole random chaos of it all, and knowing that nothing ever happens or exists if something else does not either create it, or bring it into existence. Evolution from ground dwelling rat like creature to monkeys to upright monkeys to us. It is like if a hurricane struck a hanger were they build 747s and by some mysterious force it was all pieced together just right to form a 747.

So ya take it as you will. I dont think it matter, in a generation or two, who knows what other theory my crop up. If there is one undisputed scientific fact is that no theory or even so called fact remains the same for long. Evolution, evolves.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Really what is that line about that these random mutations in nature even while happening over million of years may be true to an extent lead to us. But, Knowing the whole random chaos of it all, and knowing that nothing ever happens or exists if something else does not either create it, or bring it into existence. Evolution from ground dwelling rat like creature to monkeys to upright monkeys to us. It is like if a hurricane struck a hanger were they build 747s and by some mysterious force it was all pieced together just right to form a 747.

Nope, that's not what evolution is like in the slightest. It takes millions of generations, not a single spontaneous creation event.

a reply to: Barcs

Ya that's what I said, even in a few hundred million years or even billion, even if you actually had that time to evolve or change. Chances are still not looking good.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Barcs

Ya that's what I said, even in a few hundred million years or even billion, even if you actually had that time to evolve or change. Chances are still not looking good.

You got evidence to back up your claim of probability?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
Really what is that line about that these random mutations in nature even while happening over million of years may be true to an extent lead to us. But, Knowing the whole random chaos of it all, and knowing that nothing ever happens or exists if something else does not either create it, or bring it into existence. Evolution from ground dwelling rat like creature to monkeys to upright monkeys to us. It is like if a hurricane struck a hanger were they build 747s and by some mysterious force it was all pieced together just right to form a 747.

Nope, that's not what evolution is like in the slightest. It takes millions of generations, not a single spontaneous creation event.

You don't even know if Earth existed millions of years ago, so when you try to act like some sort of puffed up 'expert' , it's rather pathetic.


You are not making a valid argument for evolution, and obviously you cannot. Since nobody can.


You wish to avoid all of the available evidence, that is your choice.

It is there, whether you like it or not.


It's not going away.

a reply to: Barcs

Evidence? Is this the thing they do around here were I say one thing, then you say another then we argue about things back and forth. OK how about this, why don't we come back to this subject in a million years, and see what time tells us. As that would be equally as likely.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Barcs

Evidence? Is this the thing they do around here were I say one thing, then you say another then we argue about things back and forth. OK how about this, why don't we come back to this subject in a million years, and see what time tells us. As that would be equally as likely.

If we were still alive in a million years, when every species on Earth is still the exact same species, you'd say evolution takes at least a billion years. After a billion years go by, and we see that every species on Earth is still the exact same species, you'd say it takes about a trillion years.

Not only that, you'd say there's even MORE evidence of evolution. Because you'd have many more extinct species by then, which all 'evolved' into other species, of course.


You have the perfect argument - it needs no proof at all, just millions, even trillions, of years, add in some extinct species to fit the fairy tale, and you're set!

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Barcs

Evidence? Is this the thing they do around here were I say one thing, then you say another then we argue about things back and forth.

Evidence, like:

www.talkorigins.org...

and

www.talkorigins.org...

and

humanorigins.si.edu...

and

en.wikipedia.org...

and

www.jstor.org...

No need to go a million years into the future, we see the process as it happens live today. Correct, opinion is not evidence, and your assessment of the junkyard tornado 747 was completely invalid. That was what I was getting at. Evolution is not a sudden assembly of random parts and neither is abiogenesis. This is the straw man that is frequently used here to argue against them. Both are based on slow incremental change over time, not random shuffling of the entire genome.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If we were still alive in a million years, when every species on Earth is still the exact same species, you'd say evolution takes at least a billion years.

Give it a rest, dawg. We can look to the past and clearly see that species were not the same. Some changes happened as recently as 30,000 years ago. I know I gave you the lactose tolerance mutation and several other examples, but you didn't even respond to the data. You ignored it and then randomly come back later and spewed the same rhetoric after being proved wrong. We know species change. That's a fact. A million years ago, humans were much different. It's in the fossil record, plus we have some DNA samples of human ancestors/cousins. I also gave you supporting links for evolution in general many times, but I don't recall you ever addressing a single one.

Not only that, you'd say there's even MORE evidence of evolution. Because you'd have many more extinct species by then, which all 'evolved' into other species, of course.

Many more? 99.9% of all species to ever exist on earth have gone extinct, and that's not a high enough amount for you? No, all of them did not evolve into other species. Most of them just died and other, more equipped species to handle the environmental change did survive. IE, when the dinosaurs went extinct 65m years ago, they didn't just evolve into other things. They almost all died except for burrowing mammals, smaller reptiles, smaller avian dinosaurs and others that were equipped to handle the change of suddenly having very scarce food sources and a toxic environment from radiation, nuclear winter, etc etc.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

www.the-scientist.com...

This article explains the exact location of the samples you are talking about. At the end it explains:

The world’s oldest genome currently belongs to a horse that lived around 700,000 years ago. But this animal was buried in Siberian permafrost—ideal conditions for preserving DNA. Meyer’s success suggests that scientists can also extract DNA from fossils that come from a wider range of climates, including warm and humid ones. That is good news for scientists studying human evolution. “Humans have rarely been in permafrost environment. We’ve historically been a warm species,” said Reich. “A lot of the most interesting human material isn’t in cold places.”

But Meyer noted that Sima de los Huesos has very stable conditions, including little circulating air and constant temperatures of around 5°C to 10°C. “If permafrost is the perfect freezer, the cave is the perfect fridge,” he said. Still, Meyer doubts these conditions are unique, and his team are searching for similar places. These include caves that are very close to Sima de los Huesos, where possible fossils of Homo erectus and Homo antecessor have been found. “I hope we’ll find another magic site soon,” he said.

The devil is in the details, Coop.

Hopefully when Coop gets home from church he will be able to refute this.