I'm At It Again With Ask AI This Time Is Creationism and Evolution Of Species Versus Scientific Theo

a reply to: charlest2

You can get AI to agree with any viewpoint you lead it to.

I have read that glycine, alanine, and tryptophan have been found in interstellar space, what are the implications of this for later protein formation?

The discovery of amino acids like glycine, alanine, and tryptophan in interstellar space is significant as these molecules are essential building blocks of proteins. This discovery suggests that these building blocks of life might have been present in the raw materials from which planets and ultimately life forms are created.

Understanding the presence of these amino acids in interstellar space helps scientists in unraveling the mechanisms by which life could have potentially formed on Earth or other planets. It also raises fascinating questions about the origin of life and underscores the possibility that life might not be unique to Earth.

This discovery may also provide insights into the processes that take place in the vastness of space and how these organic molecules could have been delivered to Earth or other planets through meteoritic impacts, possibly seeding life in the universe. It fuels exciting research into astrobiology, the study of the origins, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe.

With subsequent leading questions you can get it to admit there is nothing miraculous about life as well.

The grand design of it all is more amazing when you don't limit your conception of divinity to a single planet, or universe for that matter.

Are we making God the infinite everything or what?

Not like it and theoretical physics are really at odds.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Hmm..... Where did the Octopus come From ?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Ancient Molluscs.

That is the claim. Mollusks like slugs and snails. Note the major gap and differences between these animals, leaving no trace in the fossil record of any intermediate species that show a gradual transformation from slugs and snails to octopi.

And this is supposed to be science?

While I agree that there are definite issues with the phylogenetic tree, fossils most usually form around hard body parts like bones and shells that mineralize. Molluscs don't have any bony parts or shells, and, except for the beak, which is more like collagen than bone, neither do octopi.

So, it is not reasonable to expect intermediate mollusc fossils, because it is not reasonable to expect fossils at all. However we can trace likely ancestry via genetics, and can surmise how traits arose that differentiated later species from their ancestors.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3

Well for one thing, according to science, the atmosphere is not what it was when life was created. All that peaky oxygen that is poluting the planet was not a gas then.

Also scientists do not have millions of years to run an experiment to make life in the lab.

I am not saying ether way is correct on this, just explaining the problem from the science side.

I agree, there are two paths creationists go. The first one is the spark of life. As you said, the earth was much different than today, and it is one thought that that spark is freaken rare, like only a few times it happened and took form in billions of years.

The other is the evolution of life into species. Either life evolved, or God spontaneously created 1,000 animals all at once to start a new species going, and that is a rough one to accept.

If anything is true in life-science it is that there is great variety in all things. The suggestion that everything falls into a dichotomy of; either everything was created in one instant, or everything evolved, leaves out all the other possibilities and permutations in-between.

It also makes no concession towards the truth that it is just as viable that some progenitor life forms were created in an instant and later evolved, after that initial creation of 'life'.

Creationists point to passages of scripture that say that everything was created "according to its kind". They imply that this means somehow that 'kinds' of biology are forever immutable.

Actually, it is invalid to use the Hebrew word מִין [min] (which appears in the original texts) in the same sense of the word 'species' in the English language. The meaning of the word "min" (4327 in the Strongs lexicon), in English, is closer to "as portioned out". So the Bible should be better translated if it said that different animals were created as portioned out by God. It says more about God's part in the creation and nothing at all about the immutability of species.

So, the Creationist interpretation of the Bible verses, is erroneous.

Similarly, there are issues with evolutionary ideas in that once a sexual organism evolves to the state where it is no longer able to breed with other organisms that do not have its accumulated genetic differences (speciciation), then that organism will be unable to have offspring. It will be a mate-less genetic dead end. For the organism to produce offspring, it must be able to mate with another organism with similar enough genetics, and alive at the same time, and in the same approximate location. If mutation is the primary method of acquiring genetic change, then it requires more than one organism to have exactly the same (random) mutation/s. While this is possible, it makes things far less likely than the general process as defined in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

The most rational conclusion, in the face of the variety of life and the speed of adaptation, is that yes, evolutionary adaptation happens, and also that 'something' is, and has been, helping things along, as well.

Similarly, evolution describes how species change and acquire, or lose, (or both), genetic traits, but while it describes change, it does not describe how life started in the first place. Chemical abiogenesis, while looking like it may be possible, has never been demonstrated and it would make a mockery of the phylogenetic tree if life spontaneously arose from chemistry billions of times over the history of the Earth, as might be expected with the limited number of elements that are used by biological processes that and that exist stably.

originally posted by: chr0naut
If mutation is the primary method of acquiring genetic change, then it requires more than one organism to have exactly the same (random) mutation/s. While this is possible, it makes things far less likely than the general process as defined in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

I don't agree with that point. Species live along a scale of evolution. Let's just use a million years to make it simple, so like species within that million years will have enough similarities to breed. We see it in big cars that can breed, but the donkey and horse are just outside of that species similar to where they can breed but mules are sterile. Then if we look at humans and chimps, they can't breed no matter what because the distance in evolutionary change is too great.

The most rational conclusion, in the face of the variety of life and the speed of adaptation, is that yes, evolutionary adaptation happens, and also that 'something' is, and has been, helping things along, as well.

I still feel we are trying to hit the easy button still when we can't explain something...oh God did it... How is that any different than saying God made the wind blow?

Similarly, evolution describes how species change and acquire, or lose, (or both), genetic traits, but while it describes change, it does not describe how life started in the first place. Chemical abiogenesis, while looking like it may be possible, has never been demonstrated and it would make a mockery of the phylogenetic tree of life spontaneously arose from chemistry billions of times over the history of the Earth, as might be expected with the limited number of elements that are used by biological processes that and that exist stably.

As I said before it seems from a few people deep in this area of the study, they suggest the spark of life was very rare to go past any stage after the initial simple chemistry of life. It is also seen that life was in very simple forms for billions of years and it wasn't until the predator/prey part came into existence that evolution really started to do its thing.

Today we are much closer to explaining life than even 10 years ago, and I don't think people stay up on current events and just kind of live in their belief system. BTW, any time God is used to explain something it really explains nothing...

a reply to: chr0naut

The so-called evidence from the field of genetics is as shoddy and propagandistic as the so-called evidence from paleontology (or the fossil record).

They can't even get accurate genome sequences from next-generation sequencing techniques, which is on purpose, so they can make a genome look just like they want it to look as they interpret the data coming out of next-generation sequencing whichever way they want using their own preferred parameters and assembly choices (as chosen for an assembler machine, program or code/algorithm, algorithms that in themselves can be quite questionable when it comes to the question: are these results accurately portraying what the actual sequence is in reality? That is when talking especially about next-generation sequencers and assemblers, the much shorter read lengths in next-generation sequencing compared to Sanger sequencing are a real issue when it comes to the subject of accuracy, such as in which order should these reads of short sequences be placed in the final complete sequence for that chromosome for example). Who's gonna care anyway if they mis-sequence the genome of numerous animal species, it's not going to be used for medical procedures anyway (unlike with the human genome which was mostly done with Sanger sequencing techniques, which is way more expensive but also way more accurate, and not as susceptible to biased manipulation of the raw data as one assembles the reads into a single genome for publication). It's the same problem with the chimp genome, also not done with Sanger sequencing techniques in order to facilitate bias and evolutionary propaganda, even altering raw data to make the chimp genome look more human in the final publications of the chimp genome (of which there have been many, and they are all slightly different, but the trend to make it look more similar to the human genome, even using the human genome as a template for assembly purposes of the different reads, remains; it really is a scam).

originally posted by: chr0naut
However we can trace likely ancestry via genetics, and can surmise how traits arose that differentiated later species from their ancestors.

Better quality:

Coming back to the chimp genomes that have been published and their problems concerning accuracy and honesty, see the video below from 31:42 - 37:42:

Most of what he points out concerning the problems with the chimpanzee genome (which are different issues than the one I talked about concerning the sequencing techniques and biased manipulation of the data that were used, although he talks about a different biased manipulation of the data) are still true today (after a couple of new genome versions have been published), but especially his conclusion at the end: "That means, that the chimpanzee genome is garbage. It's an embarrassment. It should be thrown out and redone." (and this time not with next-generation sequencing techniques but with the expensive and time-intensive Sanger sequencing technique, but they'll never do that, not as profitable and not easily funded by means of research grants; the human genome project was also more of a collective effort and it was more important to get it accurate cause it's used in the medical field, mistakes are also more easily discovered cause medical personnel or researchers involved will often request a specific region of DNA to be sequenced as accurately as possible to base treatments on or for medical research; also note that some years ago the FBI wrote a report questioning the reliability of DNA evidence in court cases, even with sequencing a human genome mistakes are made and one can get misleading results, it's not the best evidence available in court, eyewitness accounts still trump it, even though those are also not always reliable*).

*: it's been years since I read that report from the FBI about DNA evidence so I can't give you a reference for it, it was probably via wikipedia that I found the report. It was more of a side note anyway.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Today we are much closer to explaining life than even 10 years ago, and I don't think people stay up on current events and just kind of live in their belief system.

James Tour's series on abiogenesis from 3 years ago, and his follow-up series from 1 year ago, is as up-to-date, honest and accurate as it gets (can't say the same of the misleading publications or presentations of OOL researchers and their hype in the past 10 years or the decades before, with no foreseeable change in their modus operandi in the future).

Not that you'll ever take those presentations and him seriously (I recon you prefer Dave Farina's videos and ad hominems on James Tour, as well as his misleading information and propaganda about the chemistry involved, or when OOL researchers are using the same or similar tactics concerning either James Tour or the chemistry involved; see videolink under "their modus operandi" for examples, especially after 4:15). It doesn't tickle your ears.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 1
Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 02

a reply to: whereislogic

So I watched some and he seems to explain that we do not know how life started or the full path of evolution. OK, what else is new. How do you go from we do not know to it must be a God we know nothing about either. As I said, God is an easy button to push. By saying God did it is also saying in 10,000 years we will still be at the same level of understanding.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut
If mutation is the primary method of acquiring genetic change, then it requires more than one organism to have exactly the same (random) mutation/s. While this is possible, it makes things far less likely than the general process as defined in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

I don't agree with that point. Species live along a scale of evolution. Let's just use a million years to make it simple, so like species within that million years will have enough similarities to breed. We see it in big cars that can breed, but the donkey and horse are just outside of that species similar to where they can breed but mules are sterile. Then if we look at humans and chimps, they can't breed no matter what because the distance in evolutionary change is too great.

Human histological compatibility is predicated on the basis of just 112 genes. Small changes to those genes mean that a baby can be biologically incompatible with its mother, which leads to significant disease or death.

There are many similar biological systems that must necessarily be compatible, and to which minor changes, to few genes, will totally mess with.

Species bio-incompatibility goes far beyond just the instance of production of 'mules'.

To breed successfully, organisms need to be at the right place, at the right time, and with sufficient genetic compatibility. If individual organisms cannot breed and produce successful offspring, the whole 'house of cards' of evolutionary development beyond that point is irrelevant.

Once the amount of genomic mutation rises enough to cause bio-incompatibility (and genetic change is cumulative over generations), that genomic line is terminal because they have no available compatible mate to pair with.

While gradualism seems superficially to offer the slim possibility of speciation, it is all predicated upon the successful mating of individual organisms.

And we also frequently see rapid change that doesn't fit the gradualist model.

That is not to say that change does not happen in ways that fit parts of evolutionary theory, because it does, and they have been observed in process. It just speaks to the incompleteness of current evolutionary theories. The processes of biological change aren't simple, and are as varied, numerous, and nuanced, as biology itself.

The most rational conclusion, in the face of the variety of life and the speed of adaptation, is that yes, evolutionary adaptation happens, and also that 'something' is, and has been, helping things along, as well.

I still feel we are trying to hit the easy button still when we can't explain something...oh God did it... How is that any different than saying God made the wind blow?

God is revealed in nature, science and in scripture to have method, purpose, and process. God does not do things at random, or otherwise the universe would be incomprehensible (and true randomness, like infinities, doesn't really sit well with what science knows of physical systems).

The suggestion that 'people of faith' actually use God as an 'un-think' option is absurd. No-one thinks that. The order and structure of the world is extremely apparent.

God "makes the wind blow" by atmospheric and physical forces that we can measure and describe. One paradigm does not negate the other. They coexist, inseparably. There is no disagreement between faith and science. There is only disagreement about what people think they know about faith and science.

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” - Albert Einstein.

Similarly, evolution describes how species change and acquire, or lose, (or both), genetic traits, but while it describes change, it does not describe how life started in the first place. Chemical abiogenesis, while looking like it may be possible, has never been demonstrated and it would make a mockery of the phylogenetic tree of life spontaneously arose from chemistry billions of times over the history of the Earth, as might be expected with the limited number of elements that are used by biological processes that and that exist stably.

As I said before it seems from a few people deep in this area of the study, they suggest the spark of life was very rare to go past any stage after the initial simple chemistry of life. It is also seen that life was in very simple forms for billions of years and it wasn't until the predator/prey part came into existence that evolution really started to do its thing.

The chemistry and physics of chemical abiogenetic theory are simple. The basic components are abundant. The situations that give rise to life-like chemicals and processes are frequent. In regard to those facts, for life to arise only once (or twice) would itself be miraculous. The suggestion of such rarity is magical thinking, bereft of science.

Today we are much closer to explaining life than even 10 years ago, and I don't think people stay up on current events and just kind of live in their belief system. BTW, any time God is used to explain something it really explains nothing...

Since we have not actually attained a comprehensive explanation for life, wouldn't all those 'advances' really not amount to anything definite? Sounds like using 'science' as an un-think label to explain things it doesn't?

originally posted by: chr0naut

To breed successfully, organisms need to be at the right place, at the right time, and with sufficient genetic compatibility.

They are and do within an efficient time scale. When was the last time a whole species magically appeared on the plains of Africa? It seems you and others just do not want evolution to work, but with or without God evolution can still work.

Once the amount of genomic mutation rises enough to cause bio-incompatibility (and genetic change is cumulative over generations), that genomic line is terminal because they have no available compatible mate to pair with.

I agree that can happen and we see it with the Bonobos that with the separation of a river over a long period of time has had enough genetic drift that they are their species now. As long as a species is constantly making babies, they are sharing that drift and so you do not get your incompatibility unless there is a hard wall that doesn't allow them to share their genic drift and they start to go in different directions.

and also that 'something' is, and has been, helping things along, as well.

Doesn't need help if the outcome is random.

God "makes the wind blow" by atmospheric and physical forces that we can measure and describe.

The wind would still blow without a God...

it does not describe how life started in the first place.

True, never said it does, and I have said many times that with or without God evolution still works the same. Evolution would just be the tool to explain the how, but not the why.

Since we have not actually attained a comprehensive explanation for life, wouldn't all those 'advances' really not amount to anything definite? Sounds like using 'science' as an un-think label to explain things it doesn't?

I say life popped into existence by magic fairy dust, why is that any different than saying God did it?

Form the OP

Abiogenesis is a complex field of study that seeks to understand how life could have emerged from nonliving matter. While there is no definitive proof of this process occurring.

I have said many times, abiogenesis fails the overall beginning ideology of evolution.
People that want to believe in evolution put just as much faith in abiogenesis happening, as religious people do in creation happening.
If intellectual honesty happened, they would accept that the two must be linked within the totality of the concept itself.

Another explanation from CHATGPT

....the exact pathway from non-living chemistry to living organisms is still unknown. The field is progressing, but recreating the exact conditions and processes that led to the origin of life billions of years ago remains a significant scientific challenge....and definitive proof of the specific mechanisms and pathways involved is still lacking.

Evolution has no foundation, a scientific theory can't survive without a foundation on which it builds, unless you want to put faith in it, then it can; just like believing in God and creation the exact same thing. Faith in a specific ideology.

a reply to: charlest2

SO AI came up with mumbo jumbo and here you are here art ATS asking real humans. Well the debate continues.