Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by SevenThunders
This is still a strawman argument and, further, you're still making the basic mistake of conflating abiogenesis and evolution. They are two separate
concepts -- abiogenesis is concerned with how life got here, evolution with what life does once it already exists.
It is not a strawman argument and I am certainly able to differentiate between the impossible leap from inanimate matter to life, and the impossible
leap from a single celled organism to a human. Both require matter to self organize in ways that we never observe in nature.
That self organization is why this is not a straw man argument. The burden of proof lies on the evolutionist who dares to assert a magical process,
independent of a designer, that creates complexity from simplicity. You must provide a powerful proof to overcome the difficulties such an assertion
presents. For your assertion is in fact more amazing than observing an ipad form randomly from a heap of sand, due to the sheer complexity and
functionality of the life forms involved, which dwarf the complexity of an ipad.
By the way, when you really start to get down into the nitty gritty. The actual chemistry behind the evolutionary process, more than one high
level, top chemist has no idea how evolution could possibly work. This man, Dr Tour, who ranks in the top 10 based on scholarly citations, will
give you a sandwich if you can prove it to him.
The simple compounds that were present in our primordial atmosphere about four billion years ago readily assemble into amino acids,
nucleotides, etc. These building blocks of all life on this planet will readily self-assemble into polypeptide chains and nucleic acids.
Really? Do you understand the complexity of a single celled organism and how many mutually coupled systems there are even at that level? e.g. the
function of the dna and the function of a cell membrane rely on each other. Dr. Tour will disagree with your argument. If you have the answer to how
this could really happen, there is a free sandwich in it for you.
Complexity, form and function to an end are evident in the Ipad, yet we are to suspend our logic and believe that life and humans in particular
all happened by sheer accident.
What an amazing accident it truly was.
When the laws of physics that govern chemical reactions allow the reactions to form all of the building blocks of life to occur, why should it be
called an accident?
In this context, it means a mechanism that runs autonomously, without a designer, due to whatever forces or chaotic structure the universe may bring
So processes that run and are governed by a set of laws that are determinable are "random chance"? That's a peculiar definition of "random
Well its not peculiar. Most random systems follow this process. Take something simple like a Markov chain. You have a state and that state
'evolves' to a new state based on a set of truly random inputs. This can ultimately be described as a set of discrete probabilities for
transitioning to each of the next possible states. Thus there is a presumed structure that constrains the state transitions. But the transitions are
truly random inasmuch as we do not know apriori what transition will take place and we presume such transitions are dependent only on the current
state and nothing else.
Markov chains, by the way, are one of the lynchpins for understanding most random processes, though things can get nonlinear and very complex.
Scientific fact? Hardly. It was met with skepticism immediately upon being revealed. Less than a year after it was officially presented, and keep in
mind this was before the information age, David Waterston concluded that it was a human skull and an ape jawbone. More scientists over the years, like
Boule and Weidenreich, concluded the same. An analytical test that could verify whether or not the skull was relatively recent was finally developed
in the early 1940's, but then that pesky World War II broke out and it couldn't actually be performed until the late 40's. You can keep flogging it
all you want, but it was a fraud perpetrated by a non-scientist and exposed by scientists. Science is self-correcting.
It was a fraud perpetrated by a scientist and apparently it was 'convincing' enough to enter our textbooks. There were Nature articles, the
premiere journal of science, that declared, that Piltdown man was an improvement on Darwin and as late as 1950, nature published this article, "New
Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man"