Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by Pardon?


You need proof of common knowledge?

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

Oh crap I'm not supposed to copy paste, how do I get this info to you, snail mail?

reply to post by Pardon?


To make a protein, a cell must put a chain of amino acids together in the right order. First, it makes a copy of the relevant DNA instruction in the cell nucleus, and takes it into the cytoplasm - a bit like taking a photocopy of the instruction manual from the manager's office out to the assembly lines in a car factory. Here, the cell decodes the instruction and makes many copies of the protein, which fold into shape as they are produced.

Without a living cell where does the DNA instruction come from?

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by Pardon?

 

To make a protein, a cell must put a chain of amino acids together in the right order. First, it makes a copy of the relevant DNA instruction in the cell nucleus, and takes it into the cytoplasm - a bit like taking a photocopy of the instruction manual from the manager's office out to the assembly lines in a car factory. Here, the cell decodes the instruction and makes many copies of the protein, which fold into shape as they are produced.

Without a living cell where does the DNA instruction come from?

So essentially your position is argument from ignorance?

Intredasting..

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by Pardon?

 

To make a protein, a cell must put a chain of amino acids together in the right order. First, it makes a copy of the relevant DNA instruction in the cell nucleus, and takes it into the cytoplasm - a bit like taking a photocopy of the instruction manual from the manager's office out to the assembly lines in a car factory. Here, the cell decodes the instruction and makes many copies of the protein, which fold into shape as they are produced.

Without a living cell where does the DNA instruction come from?

So essentially your position is argument from ignorance?

Intredasting..

Well please relieve me of the burden of ignorance, are there ribosomes found in mud? How ignorant of me to assume that only a living cell might contain ribosomes!

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Well please relieve me of the burden of ignorance, are there ribosomes found in mud? How ignorant of me to assume that only a living cell might contain ribosomes!

We don't understand the precise mechanics of how gravity works, yet that does not invalidate Newton's laws.

Abiogenesis remains, at this stage a valid hypothesis (along with Clay theory, panspermia and yes, even spontaneous creation). Proving one hypothesis wrong does not necessarily validate the other.

And it certainly has no bearing on the theory of evolution..

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Well please relieve me of the burden of ignorance, are there ribosomes found in mud? How ignorant of me to assume that only a living cell might contain ribosomes!

We don't understand the precise mechanics of how gravity works, yet that does not invalidate Newton's laws.

Abiogenesis remains, at this stage a valid hypothesis (along with Clay theory, panspermia and yes, even spontaneous creation). Proving one hypothesis wrong does not necessarily validate the other.

And it certainly has no bearing on the theory of evolution..

And I'm somehow the ignorant one for pointing out lunacy in arguing any of this? None of you have proven anything and you certainly haven't proven me wrong with insults!

Originally posted by 1nf1del
And I'm somehow the ignorant one for pointing out lunacy in arguing any of this? None of you have proven anything and you certainly haven't proven me wrong with insults!

No.

I criticised your argument, not you personally. It's quite a common logical fallacy - even very learned and quite knowledgeable people often fall into it.


Argument from Ignorance - Wikipedia

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by Pardon?

 

You need proof of common knowledge?

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

Oh crap I'm not supposed to copy paste, how do I get this info to you, snail mail?

Ahh lovely, a poor critique of abiogenesis by a committed creationist.
No bias there then.


This sentence from him in the first paragraph says it all to me;
"If a careful scientific analysis leads us to conclude that the proposed mechanisms of spontaneous origin could not have produced a living cell, and in fact that no conceivable natural process could have resulted in the spontaneous origin of life, the alternative hypothesis of Creation becomes the more attractive. If, on the other hand, we find the proposed mechanisms to be plausible, we must be aware that the methods of science can never answer with certainty the question of origin."

He's certainly setting his stall out there isn't he. He's reached his conclusion before his discussion.
That's not science.
Also, why is the "alternative hypothesis of creation" more attractive?
If you don't know the answer to something it doesn't mean something else is the answer by default. Especially an hypothesis which has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it.

I've been looking through the rest of his "paper" and although a lot of it is indeed true, he's got quite a bit wrong.
One of the first things I found out when learning about statistics and probabilities is that, as in all mathematics, if you put something wrong in then you get a wrong answer out.
His probability calculations might well be correct if there were indeed just the factors he mentions. However given the amount of factors present it actually becomes IMPOSSIBLE to produce any meaningful probability calculations.
He also makes the school-boy error of suggesting that the molecule is alone and tries to form one after another so "only 1023 years would be required to have a 95% probability of obtaining a functional molecule of cytochrome c in this system. That's ten trillion times the generally accepted age of the universe.". Yes, if it were the only molecule in a sequence then it would take that long. I would suggest that there was slightly more than that one though, probably billions upon billions thus this time period would be drastically reduced.
However, the use of probabilities is moot since whether it takes 1 in 10 tries or 1 in 10 trillion tries doesn't mean it needs every occurrence to happen. It could happen straight away, it could happen on the 8th try etc etc so it seems that obfuscation isn't just performed by evolutionists.
To explain this further he cites (Chyba) & Sagan (he doesn't mention Chyba for some reason probably because Sagan was a nemesis of his perhaps? And he doesn't even list their reference, why? Because he's misquoted the figures that's why) and comes up with a "we will achieve the intended result with a 50% probability once in 10^186 years.. Firstly, what exactly does that mean? Seriously, there's no basis for that to be able to be stated. It's babble.
Secondly as I said, the figures he uses are wrong.
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...).
If you're going to use something in a "paper" then at least use it and not just make it up.
Using the actual figures demonstrated by Chyba and Sagan there would be around 1x10^50 starting chains. That's a lot.
This means that around 1x10^31 ligases could be formed in ONE YEAR therefore the synthesis of self-replicators would happen relatively rapidly even factoring in a probability of 1 in 10^60. Certainly nowhere in the timescales that Arthur Chadwick lies about.

I'm sure you were saving that paper for a special occasion but it's been relatively easy for me to dissect it.
It's certainly not proof that abiogenesis couldn't occur at all.

What it does prove though is that creationists will lie at every opportunity in order to try to protect what they believe.

Originally posted by Pardon?


Please enlighten us why abiogenesis couldn't have happened as I seem to remember several reproducible experiments showing that it can happen naturally.

You know what? If they created life in a lab we would know about it. One experiment they did with chemicals / gases, they left out oxygen from the mix? Why did they do that? Because the problem of oxidation killing off the mix basically.

They cite that experiment thusly:

In 1952, in the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

They have never had a chemical soup create life, and you know it. Abiogenesis was disproved by science decades ago, and yet you want to still push that as theory.

I know we hate wiki, but the sources seemed adequate:

Pasteur and Darwin Head and shoulders portrait, increasingly bald with rather uneven bushy white eyebrows and beard, his wrinkled forehead suggesting a puzzled frown Charles Darwin in 1879. By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven.

Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[14][15] In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[16] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[17] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

What is the current view:

There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures

All quotes from here.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
One experiment they did with chemicals / gases, they left out oxygen from the mix? Why did they do that?

*puts up hand*

They (Miller & Urey) were re-creating, as best they thought, the atmospheric conditions of Earth circa 4.5 billion years ago. Oxygen was not introduced in large numbers until cyanobacteria or similar organisms developed and started producing it as a byproduct of their photosynthesis, so there was no (or very little) oxygen at the time.


You keep mentioning that science has disproven abiogenesis. Can you please show how and where.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by 1nf1del
And I'm somehow the ignorant one for pointing out lunacy in arguing any of this? None of you have proven anything and you certainly haven't proven me wrong with insults!

No.

I criticised your argument, not you personally. It's quite a common logical fallacy - even very learned and quite knowledgeable people often fall into it.


Argument from Ignorance - Wikipedia

My argument that you need a living cell to create a protein chain or that it is all a weak argument? I guess I'm not making my point clear enough, do we know evolution to exist? Do we know that Abiogenesis lead to creating life? Do we know that one species can change species through evolution? I'm simply questioning and being called ignorant for pointing out that none of us know where we came from? How do we figure that out, do look at it with a dogmatic view until it makes sense? Do you force your opinion on me until I believe it? I've not gotten answers to most of what I asked despite mostly being easy questions to answer which just reinforces my point you can insinuate that I'm ignorant for asking questions while not answering the questions!

The idea of Panspermia while interesting has it's problem because of the issue of oxygen.

The search for extraterrestrial life (exobiology) has been repopularized upon the realization of the improbability that life formed through abiogenesis. Scientists have been unable to get a cell to form under any conceivable condition. Likewise it has also become clear that for the basic building blocks of life to form, oxygen must be absent, and yet oxides have been found in rocks supposedly 300 million years older than the first living cells.

The idea that bacteria hitched a ride on meteors is fraught with all kinds of problems from solar radiation to the simple entry into Earth's atmosphere burning up any surface bacteria and thus they would have to be inside the rock at least 2 cm and survive the impact.

Many scientists have objected that the generation of life cannot occur, or have occurred, outside of a planetary environment, where heavier elements are plentiful. Almost the only elements present in interstellar space are hydrogen and helium--and the latter, being an inert or noble gas, is not a component of life in any form known to man. The generation objection by itself would not destroy panspermia. But the transference event requires a transit through space, followed by a passage through the earth's atmosphere and then an impact on the ground or at sea. Either of these events is fraught with danger. The unprotected space outside of an atmosphere is subject to unfiltered radiation in various forms.

These include the products of radioactive decay, cosmic rays (the highest-energy form of electromagnetic radiation known to man), and the stellar wind, a stream of particles that fly out from any star as it continuously burns. Even if any life forms could survive the spatial passage, it must then somehow penetrate the atmosphere and risk incineration from sheer friction, and then must survive the impact. Recently a team of researchers at the Centre for Molecular Biophysics in France were able to simulate a meteoric entry by strapping rocks containing microfossils and laced with Chroococcidipsis, an unusually robust bacterium, to the heat shield of a rocket probe before it was launched and then ordered to re-enter the atmosphere. Though the microfossils remained after re-entry, the bacteria were all destroyed, and only their outlines remained.

The investigators concluded that any bacteria or other micro-organisms in a meteorite would require at least 2 cm of rock covering to protect them. In fact, the experimental conditions seem to suggest that micro-organisms within an actual meteorite would require more shielding than 2 cm, because a typical meteorite enters the atmosphere at about twice the speed of the returning rocket probe.[1]

Oh, but aliens brought life here right?

However, this theory is subject to a number of logical objections:

Where and how did life form or come to this other world, for an intelligent race to build a civilization capable of launching guided missiles into interstellar, or even inter-galactic, space? Directed panspermia thus appears to be an example of the logical fallacy of infinite regression, and thus violative of Occam's razor.

Remember, science is about provable theories that you can reproduce. If it can't be witnessed, can't be tested, then it's a belief system and not science. You cannot observe the past, you cannot repeat the experiment in early Earth conditions, and to say, "well, we could take a plant to Mars, put it in the ground in a perfect atmosphere and water it and tend it means it could happen here" is all theory. That does not mean it happened here. Plus, it also indicates intelligent life transferring life, it does not have anything to do with spontaneous creation of life from non-life and no intelligent design.

Then you have the whole problem of that simple bacteria or life evolving into other life forms. Again, it's never been observed, it's never been found, and there is no proof of the theory of evolution. It is a belief system and that is all that it is.

All sources were from here

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


The oxygen bit's been answered above. It's also highly unlikely that levels of any dissolved oxygen in the "soup" would be sufficient to cause oxidation in any appreciable level.
You lot always mention that and it always gets answered and obviously forgotten.
I would suggest the hypothesis from Pasteur was superseded by the one over a century later too.

Take this into consideration too, that experiment was performed 60 or so years ago.
The earth is 4.8 billion years old (give or take).
Originally they found around a few amino-acids in it. 50 years later they have found 25.
All 20 of the amino-acids are present plus a few bonus ones.
That's just in a small flask in 50 years.
Think about it.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You keep mentioning that science has disproven abiogenesis. Can you please show how and where.

edit on 20-8-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Praying the words into place

That is the point it isn't proven either, there isn't any evidence to back it up! Any of the alternative theories are just as plausible! Is it that hard to think the universe and everything in it is eternal?

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The oxygen bit's been answered above. It's also highly unlikely that levels of any dissolved oxygen in the "soup" would be sufficient to cause oxidation in any appreciable level.
You lot always mention that and it always gets answered and obviously forgotten.
I would suggest the hypothesis from Pasteur was superseded by the one over a century later too.

Take this into consideration too, that experiment was performed 60 or so years ago.
The earth is 4.8 billion years old (give or take).
Originally they found around a few amino-acids in it. 50 years later they have found 25.
All 20 of the amino-acids are present plus a few bonus ones.
That's just in a small flask in 50 years.
Think about it.

Were there ribosomes to construct DNA chains? Was there already DNA instructions?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You keep mentioning that science has disproven abiogenesis. Can you please show how and where.

edit on 20-8-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Praying the words into place

That is the point it isn't proven either, there isn't any evidence to back it up! Any of the alternative theories are just as plausible! Is it that hard to think the universe and everything in it is eternal?

It's not the point at all.
You've stated that it "couldn't happen" and that it's been "disproven by science" several times now and as yet have still to back them up.

In my long post above I've shown why the "evidence" you cite to say it couldn't happen is wrong.
I've also given you a little hint as to actually how probable it WAS.
You've also been countered with the attempt to disprove the Miller-Urey experiment.
Irrespective of any other evidence whatsoever, this means that it is entirely possible doesn't it?

No, the alternative theories are not theories they are hypotheses. Yes, the word makes a huge difference.
The alternative hypotheses are called that as they have no evidence and are not testable.
Therefore they are not plausible at all.

Your last sentence reeks of desperation.

reply to post by 1nf1del


What has that got to do with anything at all?
It's only been 50 years.

Ask me again in a billion years or so.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
That is the point it isn't proven either, there isn't any evidence to back it up!

Not proven, obviously - since it would then be promoted beyond it's 'hypothesis' status.

However, I don't think I would agree that there is no evidence which is supportive of it. Just off the top of my head I can think of the tendancy for organic chemistry to become more and more complex - the fact that carbon atoms seem to like to form increasingly larger and complex chains. And the issue discussed above - that there was little or no oxygen in the early atmosphere - also tends to support it, because we know this affects the chemistry of organic compounds..

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

You keep mentioning that science has disproven abiogenesis. Can you please show how and where.

edit on 20-8-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: Praying the words into place

That is the point it isn't proven either, there isn't any evidence to back it up! Any of the alternative theories are just as plausible! Is it that hard to think the universe and everything in it is eternal?

It's not the point at all.
You've stated that it "couldn't happen" and that it's been "disproven by science" several times now and as yet have still to back them up.

In my long post above I've shown why the "evidence" you cite to say it couldn't happen is wrong.
I've also given you a little hint as to actually how probable it WAS.
You've also been countered with the attempt to disprove the Miller-Urey experiment.
Irrespective of any other evidence whatsoever, this means that it is entirely possible doesn't it?

No, the alternative theories are not theories they are hypotheses. Yes, the word makes a huge difference.
The alternative hypotheses are called that as they have no evidence and are not testable.
Therefore they are not plausible at all.

Your last sentence reeks of desperation.

I haven't once stated it was dis-proven, that would be a stupid claim, I HAVE repeatedly stated it is NOT proven, you do know the difference, right? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis too, so what? You have proven nothing!

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by 1nf1del
That is the point it isn't proven either, there isn't any evidence to back it up!

Not proven, obviously - since it would then be promoted beyond it's 'hypothesis' status.

However, I don't think I would agree that there is no evidence which is supportive of it. Just off the top of my head I can think of the tendancy for organic chemistry to become more and more complex - the fact that carbon atoms seem to like to form increasingly larger and complex chains. And the issue discussed above - that there was little or no oxygen in the early atmosphere - also tends to support it, because we know this affects the chemistry of organic compounds..

Where do organic chemicals come from? Living cells? How do you have organic chemicals if you don't have organisms to create?