Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: turbonium1
Real science looks at all the evidence available, first of all.

You mean like this? talkorigins.org...

The link that has been ignored by creationists thousands of times? Yeah totally no evidence.

But evolution ignores all the available evidence, which shows it is anti-science.

Okay, now post me your so called evidence that is being ignored. Please be sure to give the corresponding research papers. At least try to be honest.

originally posted by: Barcs

You mean like this? talkorigins.org...

The link that has been ignored by creationists thousands of times? Yeah totally no evidence.

There's no evidence for evolution in your link, so that's probably why it's been ignored so often.

Pointing to a link and saying 'here's evidence for you', is not exactly 'evidence' of any kind.

How about making an effort to actually POST so-called 'evidence', from your source? Is that asking too much of you, now?

originally posted by: Barcs
Okay, now post me your so called evidence that is being ignored. Please be sure to give the corresponding research papers. At least try to be honest.

Look at the DNA records of millions of different species on Earth.

If DNA of a housefly was given to a biologist, who didn't know where the DNA came from....why would they be able to identify it as the DNA of a housefly?

Scientists have studied countless DNA samples, from countless species, for many years now.

And they always can identify the species from DNA, without knowing what species it came from, right?

Because, no matter where the DNA came from, they know DNA is unique, to each and every species on Earth, right? Once those species have first been identified through their unique DNA, they can identify all species from their unique DNA..


I'm not sure of how many millions of species have been identified through their DNA, to be that same species, but I DO know it is scientific evidence of species on Earth being the same species, always. Which also shows evolution is simply garbage.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

You mean like this? talkorigins.org...

The link that has been ignored by creationists thousands of times? Yeah totally no evidence.

There's no evidence for evolution in your link, so that's probably why it's been ignored so often.

Pointing to a link and saying 'here's evidence for you', is not exactly 'evidence' of any kind.

How about making an effort to actually POST so-called 'evidence', from your source? Is that asking too much of you, now?

originally posted by: Barcs
Okay, now post me your so called evidence that is being ignored. Please be sure to give the corresponding research papers. At least try to be honest.

Look at the DNA records of millions of different species on Earth.

If DNA of a housefly was given to a biologist, who didn't know where the DNA came from....why would they be able to identify it as the DNA of a housefly?

Scientists have studied countless DNA samples, from countless species, for many years now.

And they always can identify the species from DNA, without knowing what species it came from, right?

Because, no matter where the DNA came from, they know DNA is unique, to each and every species on Earth, right? Once those species have first been identified through their unique DNA, they can identify all species from their unique DNA..


I'm not sure of how many millions of species have been identified through their DNA, to be that same species, but I DO know it is scientific evidence of species on Earth being the same species, always. Which also shows evolution is simply garbage.

If you are too lazy to click on the links, let alone read them (or still less understand them), that's entirely your fault.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

You mean like this? talkorigins.org...

The link that has been ignored by creationists thousands of times? Yeah totally no evidence.

There's no evidence for evolution in your link, so that's probably why it's been ignored so often.

Pointing to a link and saying 'here's evidence for you', is not exactly 'evidence' of any kind.

How about making an effort to actually POST so-called 'evidence', from your source? Is that asking too much of you, now?

originally posted by: Barcs
Okay, now post me your so called evidence that is being ignored. Please be sure to give the corresponding research papers. At least try to be honest.

Look at the DNA records of millions of different species on Earth.

If DNA of a housefly was given to a biologist, who didn't know where the DNA came from....why would they be able to identify it as the DNA of a housefly?

Scientists have studied countless DNA samples, from countless species, for many years now.

And they always can identify the species from DNA, without knowing what species it came from, right?

Because, no matter where the DNA came from, they know DNA is unique, to each and every species on Earth, right? Once those species have first been identified through their unique DNA, they can identify all species from their unique DNA..


I'm not sure of how many millions of species have been identified through their DNA, to be that same species, but I DO know it is scientific evidence of species on Earth being the same species, always. Which also shows evolution is simply garbage.

If you are too lazy to click on the links, let alone read them (or still less understand them), that's entirely your fault.

No, you are too lazy to actually show whatever evidence you claim is there, that's entirely your fault, and your burden of responsibility.


'Teacher, all my answers are right here, in this book. If you're too lazy to find them, it's entirely your fault!'

originally posted by: turbonium1
There's no evidence for evolution in your link, so that's probably why it's been ignored so often.

Once again your only argument is to blatantly lie. There are dozens of linked experiments and research in that link. You are just afraid it's going to shatter your belief system, so you ignore it blindly. Thanks for proving yourself a hypocrite. I fully expect you to repeat the same lie over and over and continue to not address a single experiment. That's the norm for you clowns.

Look at the DNA records of millions of different species on Earth.

We have geneticists for that and pretty much all of them agree that it proves evolution, but again, you don't have an argument, just repetition of old rhetoric. I'd love to see you refute an experiment or a fossil discovery. But alas you got nothing. I just don't get the need to lie about it. Just admit it's too complex for you to understand and move on instead this dishonest crusade against knowledge and understanding.

Creationist: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION
Smart person: Yeah, there is, look at this link that contains dozens of experiments and fossil discoveries
Creationist: THAT DOESN'T COUNT!!

Pathetic and intellectually dishonest. No surprise at all. Honest creationist is an oxymoron.

originally posted by: Barcs

Once again your only argument is to blatantly lie. There are dozens of linked experiments and research in that link. You are just afraid it's going to shatter your belief system, so you ignore it blindly. Thanks for proving yourself a hypocrite. I fully expect you to repeat the same lie over and over and continue to not address a single experiment. That's the norm for you clowns.

If you can't accept all of the evidence, spewing insults won't help you change the reality.

All of their genetic data on living species cannot support your argument, or anyone else's argument, so those who TRY to twist the data, to conform to what does not exist, or show, does not matter. They concluded the twin towers collapsed by damage and fires, when their own evidence proved them wrong. It doesn't matter what they conclude from the evidence, it is only what the evidence shows that matters.

Are geneticists able to identify millions of different species on Earth, which are the same species all along, or are geneticists unable to identify them, because they are 'evolving' into new, unknown to exist, species?

The answer is obvious, to anyone. All species are identified by geneticists as the SAME species all along. Now, as before, all species remain the same species, and that's proven by their very own data.

You know this is the reality, deny it all you want, insult me all you want, but that's the reality here.


When you claim species are constantly 'evolving' into other, different species, without the least bit of evidence for it, when all the evidence proves otherwise, insults are all you've got.

a reply to: turbonium1

While I agree that his or her ability to prove his or her's case is lacking.
And he or she does rely a tad bit over much on personal insult.
Ultimately a proof of Nietzsche's assertion that we have a bad habit of becoming similar to the monsters we battle.
But I digress.
I'm going to have to chime in here.

The answer is obvious, to anyone. All species are identified by geneticists as the SAME species all along. Now, as before, all species remain the same species, and that's proven by their very own data.

Er...
No.

There are genetic differences in species.
This is painfully obvious in that species are different.
The genes dictate those differences.
There are alot of genes that are shared, but that is to be expected if you accept that all life on Earth is related to some extent.

I meant each one species are the same, to that same, single, one type pf species, ust as every other species is unique to that one, same type of species...


All species are unique to their one, single species.

Every species shares in DNA, that's true. Not one source species, though.

a reply to: turbonium1

Every individual is different genetically. Even you and I have differences. Let's say you moved to a remote location with a large group of your friends and family, while I did the same thing and my group could not interact with yours. Over time, my group would end up with different shared genetic variations from yours, right? Now just multiply that by a factor of thousands of people and thousands of generations. Our groups would slowly diverge over time and the differences would increase.

Your rambling are incoherent. The species classification isn't exact, it's arbitrary depending on your reference point. If I compared a human today to a human 200,000 years ago there would be a lot of differences, but likely they are the still same species. If you go back 400,000 they could be classified as different species. But if you were to say start with the one in the middle, they could be genetically compatible with both the species today and the one from 400,000 years ago and technically classified under the same species name.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Every individual is different genetically. Even you and I have differences. Let's say you moved to a remote location with a large group of your friends and family, while I did the same thing and my group could not interact with yours. Over time, my group would end up with different shared genetic variations from yours, right? Now just multiply that by a factor of thousands of people and thousands of generations. Our groups would slowly diverge over time and the differences would increase.

Yes there are subtle genetic differences among humanity (about 0.6% difference between each individual), but this in no way implies that these genetic differences can culminate over time to change, for example, an ape into something other than an ape. You assume these genetic differences can amalgamate until you get evolution, but that's not how genes work. Genes code for proteins, so a gradual change to a gene could not make the quantum leap from coding for one protein to another with one single mutation, or even hundreds of them for that matter. It would require a miracle. Proteins like titin are over 100,000 nucleotides long... imagine how long this would have taken to evolve by chance! not to mention the countless inviable steps it would have had to pass while it was still a worthless gene that did not yet code for titin.

evolution and its gradual model therefore does not work. Genetic variability among humans is an example of the potential for diversity that was programmed into our source code in the beginning.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yes there are subtle genetic differences among humanity (about 0.6% difference between each individual), but this in no way implies that these genetic differences can culminate over time to change, for example, an ape into something other than an ape.

How do you know that? What prevents the small changes from adding up over longer time periods. Sorry but the accumulation of mutations exactly implies it can happen long term.

You assume these genetic differences can amalgamate until you get evolution, but that's not how genes work.

That's exactly how genes work. Mutations change the code and those change can affect the morphology.

Genes code for proteins, so a gradual change to a gene could not make the quantum leap from coding for one protein to another with one single mutation, or even hundreds of them for that matter. It would require a miracle. Proteins like titin are over 100,000 nucleotides long... imagine how long this would have taken to evolve by chance! not to mention the countless inviable steps it would have had to pass while it was still a worthless gene that did not yet code for titin. evolution and its gradual model therefore does not work.

Give a citation here, because this argument does not make sense. The code gives instructions for the rest of the cells. If it tells the body to use a certain protein, it will do that. Changing the instruction changes what the cells do in response. Sounds like you are diverting to the origin of proteins.

Genetic variability among humans is an example of the potential for diversity that was programmed into our source code in the beginning.

LOL nope.

US Army contractor said I was a 'vril' back in 2013 while processing for the military.

He said I was 'S.O.' (special operations).

I saw: -UFOs
-antigravity
-black holes
-teleportation
-telekinesis
-mind control
-flashes of white light
-flashes of colored light, full blown auras (could be prima materia? Radical ki?)

Been doing experiments and training for years.

We need to take this 'vril conspiracy' seriously.

Need researchers, honest critique.

originally posted by: Barcs

How do you know that? What prevents the small changes from adding up over longer time periods.

Glad you asked. You are assuming that successive mutations could, for example, accumulate to extend a horse's neck into the length of a giraffe. Given enough successful mutations, you could assume this could happen. But that's not how genetics work. It's not as though there's a gene for a long neck, and there's especially no evidence for a gene that had successive mutations to extend a neck. Such a mechanism was presumably what evolutionists thought they would find with the genetic code, but they didn't, and they still refuse to accept that the theory is bunk.

That's exactly how genes work. Mutations change the code and those change can affect the morphology.

But we have never seen an organism change into another organism. Fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, etc. Yes genes affect morphology, but there's no evidence ever that mutated genes can result in the transition of one organism into another. I admire your faith, but it is a shame it is faith in nothing.

The code gives instructions for the rest of the cells. If it tells the body to use a certain protein, it will do that.

Gene-coding proteins code for proteins. These proteins have a synchronous effect with other aspects of the body. Again, this demonstrates another tremendous hurdle for evolution - how could you "improve" one gene (protein) without having a destruction in the multitude of biochemical cascades that the old protein was involved in? The theory is old and out-dated It is not congruent with empirical observations in biology.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Mutation happens.
We know it does.
We have seen speciation happen.

An example of speciation is the Galápagos finch. Different species of these birds live on different islands in the Galápagos archipelago, located in the Pacific Ocean off South America. The finches are isolated from one another by the ocean. Over millions of years, each species of finch developed a unique beak that is especially adapted to the kinds of food it eats. Some finches have large, blunt beaks that can crack the hard shells of nuts and seeds. Other finches have long, thin beaks that can probe into cactus flowers without the bird being poked by the cactus spines. Still other finches have medium-size beaks that can catch and grasp insects. Because they are isolated, the birds don’t breed with one another and have therefore developed into unique species with unique characteristics. This is called allopatric speciation.

www.nationalgeographic.org...

And after small changes over millions of years, you're going to have some pretty drastic differences between animals with the same ancestors.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows

And after small changes over millions of years, you're going to have some pretty drastic differences between animals with the same ancestors.

But we have seen in the lab setting that there are particular bounds that prevent an organism from changing into another organism. Birds remain birds.

Take for example antibiotic resistance in microbes. This was originally thought to be proof of evolution, but they observed one consistent flaw with this postulate - the microbes would always return to baseline state once the antibiotic was removed from the population. This demonstrated they were not evolving, but instead adapting with mechanisms already present in their genetic code. This is now known as epigenetics, and it is inheritable. But these epigenetic alterations can only reach so far, because they work by turning up or down already-existent genes in the genome.

epigenetic inheritance

It is only a matter of time until scientists realize this theory is out-dated. But people's jobs rely on its validity so it may take a while for them to admit they are wrong.

a reply to: cooperton

But we have seen in the lab setting that there are particular bounds that prevent an organism from changing into another organism. Birds remain birds.

One word for a larger example, dinosaurs.

Take for example antibiotic resistance in microbes. This was originally thought to be proof of evolution, but they observed one consistent flaw with this postulate - the microbes would always return to baseline state once the antibiotic was removed from the population. This demonstrated they were not evolving, but instead adapting with mechanisms already present in their genetic code. This is now known as epigenetics, and it is inheritable. But these epigenetic alterations can only reach so far, because they work by turning up or down already-existent genes in the genome.

Not particularly, this is one particular case in a very particular set of situations with a particular type of organism.
It does not prove the larger argument you place upon it.

It is only a matter of time until scientists realize this theory is out-dated. But people's jobs rely on its validity so it may take a while for them to admit they are wrong.

You know, this comment could be aimed right back you out don't you?
I'm not trying to act like the antireligious cult yahoos here.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Every individual is different genetically. Even you and I have differences. Let's say you moved to a remote location with a large group of your friends and family, while I did the same thing and my group could not interact with yours. Over time, my group would end up with different shared genetic variations from yours, right? Now just multiply that by a factor of thousands of people and thousands of generations. Our groups would slowly diverge over time and the differences would increase.

Your rambling are incoherent. The species classification isn't exact, it's arbitrary depending on your reference point. If I compared a human today to a human 200,000 years ago there would be a lot of differences, but likely they are the still same species. If you go back 400,000 they could be classified as different species. But if you were to say start with the one in the middle, they could be genetically compatible with both the species today and the one from 400,000 years ago and technically classified under the same species name.

You are confusing genetic variables present, within each one, single species, itself.

Adaptation.

Same species, as before.

You are confusing genetic variables present, within each one, single species, itself.

Adaptation.

Same species, as before.

I'm not confusing anything.

originally posted by: Barcs

You are confusing genetic variables present, within each one, single species, itself.

Adaptation.

Same species, as before.

I'm not confusing anything.

Each species has a wide range of variation within it, some present, some dormant.

This is what you believe is species changing, or 'evolving, into a completely different species. Like all evolutionists try to do. I prefer actual evidence, over unsupportable claims, while you prefer the latter. So be it.