The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Jesus we have to start somewhere are you suggesting we don't bother?.
If we can create life should we not do so? why? because it disproves all the BS religious stuff and creationists will have nothing left to cling onto....
Oh well never mind how sad said the rest of humanity who wish to learn and discover and to evolve.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Very magnanomos of you

Trasna ort féin!

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Jesus we have to start somewhere are you suggesting we don't bother?.
If we can create life should we not do so? why? because it disproves all the BS religious stuff and creationists will have nothing left to cling onto....
Oh well never mind how sad said the rest of humanity who wish to learn and discover and to evolve.

They are not creating life, they cannot do so that is the problem. Since they cannot, they do not have a full understanding. They are altering life which is ironic because they are throwing evolution out the window when they do so. Evolution did not end up with what they plan on doing.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

We couldn't fly at one point but people continued. Again I ask why should we stop? I think God is going to be well chuffed If we discover how she did it all.
Well proud of us all and our god given minds.
I think she will look down on people who want to halt scientific knowledge.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Wow you really are missing the point on this one. if you look at the whole of human history, things we do today, were magic to people oh say 500 years back (and older). Flight, space travel in any form, most of modern medicine. Indeed most of the accepted ways of science today would be heresy. The fact we know know, have proven, and only the most obtuse disagree with the fact that the Earth is not the center of all creation, means we have come far.

We can't create life? To be honest we are getting there, though I am pretty sure the moment it goes beyond synthetic genomes, the religious reich uh right will demand we stop, because we are "playing god". Oh wait that happens with things as simple as the use of stem cells.


But here is another problem. You just tried to move the goal posts again. So you can not prove that abiogenesis must be intrinsically linked to evolution (the premise of the thread, a thread created by one of your congregation)? Oh well then you will just zero in on part of it. In this case Abiogensis. Something which no one claims is understood. No one claims is beyond a series of hypotheses. Sadly that is intellectual dishonesty. Create a new thread. But understand not one of us is pushing abiogenesis as a scientific theory. Nope, not one. Oh and don't try to then say "then you do not understand evolution". It does not work that way, and that would be more intellectual dishonesty on your part.


This argument you put forth is at least a deviation from your congregations "read from the notes passed to us" methods. Congratulations, now some critical thinking? Or is that asking too much?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Wow you really are missing the point on this one. if you look at the whole of human history, things we do today, were magic to people oh say 500 years back (and older). Flight, space travel in any form, most of modern medicine. Indeed most of the accepted ways of science today would be heresy. The fact we know know, have proven, and only the most obtuse disagree with the fact that the Earth is not the center of all creation, means we have come far.

We can't create life? To be honest we are getting there, though I am pretty sure the moment it goes beyond synthetic genomes, the religious reich uh right will demand we stop, because we are "playing god". Oh wait that happens with things as simple as the use of stem cells.


But here is another problem. You just tried to move the goal posts again. So you can not prove that abiogenesis must be intrinsically linked to evolution (the premise of the thread, a thread created by one of your congregation)? Oh well then you will just zero in on part of it. In this case Abiogensis. Something which no one claims is understood. No one claims is beyond a series of hypotheses. Sadly that is intellectual dishonesty. Create a new thread. But understand not one of us is pushing abiogenesis as a scientific theory. Nope, not one. Oh and don't try to then say "then you do not understand evolution". It does not work that way, and that would be more intellectual dishonesty on your part.


This argument you put forth is at least a deviation from your congregations "read from the notes passed to us" methods. Congratulations, now some critical thinking? Or is that asking too much?

Mechanical marvels are not the same as changing an evolutionary process such as photosynthesis, the basis of which life depends on in the ecosystem. Apples to oranges.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Apples to oranges.

You'd certainly recognize that method since you've been using it when comparing evolution to abiogensis, atheism to evolution, gene manipulation in plants to evolution, and pretty much every other argument you've tried to make in this thread.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Who said mechanical? Craig Venter and his research group are working on purely synthetic biological life.

www.npr.org...
"Scientists Reach Milestone On Way To Artificial Life". 2010-05-20.

Oh look it even made mainstream news sources. Imagine that.

Oh look same year:

www.publishproject.com...

and
www.theguardian.com...

and more recently (again its a blog, so you can access it)

blogs.plos.org...


So shall we try again neighbor? There is nothing mechanical about what Venter et al are working on. Beyond the tools in the lab to help them construct these life forms genomes.

There has been work for decades on constructing genomes using non natural nuceleic acids as well. One of the academics in the Department of Chemistry I did my PhD in, was working on it, along with a great many others.

Google Scholar is your friend here, I am not sure if you will be able to access the papers sadly, I'm not about to post any that I have access via the Universities I work with

Its early days, but we did not create the very good heavier than air flight vehicles (aka planes) to begin with either. Its called refining an idea. You may or may not be familiar with the idea. But I can guarantee that you use things everyday that did that. I might have even have worked on soem pharmaceuticals you will encounter. Actually I hope not, most of my work was with treatments for cancer, HIV, etc.

a reply to: Answer

He(?) can't even use google to search for examples it seems. Ok that is being dishonest, he appears to be unwilling to do so. So I will er on the side of willful refusal to hold himself to the standards that we must follow for his ego to be satisfied

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Apples to oranges.

You'd certainly recognize that method since you've been using it when comparing evolution to abiogensis, atheism to evolution, gene manipulation in plants to evolution, and pretty much every other argument you've tried to make in this thread.

Playing dumb won't get you anywhere.

Step 1
Scientists use evolution to explain the stages photosynthesis have gone through
Step 2
Scientists look at one aspect of photosynthesis and determine this is not very efficient as far as taking Carbon from the environment
Step 3
Scientists use evolution to explain that at one time when atmospheric conditions were different, photosynthesis was in fact more efficient
Step 4
ignore all other facts like an inefficient process requires a large amount of protein, which other life adapted to in the evolutionary process
Step 5
Announce to the world that they are going to spend money fixing photosynthesis to be more efficient

Evolution is the basis for their assumptions and their work going forward.
They have not demonstrated a full understanding of evolutionary processes, especially considering they ignore one aspect to focus on another ie efficiency over protein mass. Clearly agenda driven decision making.

This is not the same as making some recessive trait dominant that they can then study the effects of in a lab. This is changing the whole energy process for the entire plant kingdom. They clearly see themselves as Gods going to do better than evolution. Yet they cannot even create the most basic form of life.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Evolution is the basis for their assumptions and their work going forward.

I'm sure you are calling them assumptions due to your bias.

They have not demonstrated a full understanding of evolutionary processes, especially considering they ignore one aspect to focus on another ie efficiency over protein mass. Clearly agenda driven decision making.

Agenda?

This is not the same as making some recessive trait dominant that they can then study the effects of in a lab. This is changing the whole energy process for the entire plant kingdom. They clearly see themselves as Gods going to do better than evolution. Yet they cannot even create the most basic form of life.

But if they can change the whole energy process for the entire plant kingdom then, they can change the whole energy process for the entire plant kingdom.

You, the OP and company can demand an answer to A before E but I'm willing to bet that nobody cares how much you think they need to answer in that order.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


Playing dumb won't get you anywhere.

There's plenty of dumb in this thread without my assistance.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Respectively could you please cite this for me? No seriously.

a reply to: Barcs

On the odds.

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.

-SIr Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe.

Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance.

Actually people who believe in those odds being successful, have more faith in science than we have in God.
Stop deceiving yourselves to the fact that you are actually trusting in some crazy odds being right.

Some people may ask how can you be so sure, let me relate how one non-believer came to believe.
Although challenged because of the evil and injustices that went on they wondered if God really existed and cared.
Then something happened in their personal life that forever changed their perspective.
One of there relatives began to get involved with demonic activity, they saw crazy things happening, unnatural things, this went on for a year, until this person removed himself from the presence of this person and the activity ceased.
They concluded if the evil supernatural side exists then the good supernatural side must exist too, they became a staunch believer in God and nothing will ever dissuade this person from his beliefs, because of this experience.

Does this person believe in creation, absolutely.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

On the odds.

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.

-SIr Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe.

Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance.

Actually people who believe in those odds being successful, have more faith in science than we have in God.
Stop deceiving yourselves to the fact that you are actually trusting in some crazy odds being right.

The odds against our planet just having the conditions for molecular life are astronomical (pun intended).

What's your point? It's highly unlikely so that means god did it?

The harder you try to discredit science to justify your belief in god, the more desperate you look to the rest of us.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well Fred was an astronomer, not a biologist, biochemist, or even a chemist (any of those disciplines are better equiped to talk about life, similarly I as a Chemist and Bioinformatics jockey would not be qualified to talk to black holes).

Fred, denied the likelihood of the Bigbang as well as abiogenisis. Something he was more qualified to speak too than origins of life. None the less, it is still a single persons opinion. Science requires verifiable, results. Opinion is not data. HE may or may not be correct on the Big Bang, and the origins of life, it does not matter.

While we are at it, his reasons for not believing in the theory of the Big Bang ... mostly answered now. Its science, evidence builds or changes, and theories change with them. Its much more honest than sticking to ones guns because a book told us, a deity told a holy man, it was so. There are other reasons to reject the Big Bang, and accept it.

You and your congregation are now trying to zero in on abiogenesis/proteogenesis as the weak link. Yet you and they do not get it is a series of hypotehses, thus which one will you go after neighbor?

Fred Hoyle had some interesting if whacky ideas over the origins of life. Viz, the 1918 influenza pandemic. He was wrong there too (genetics show it was purely earth based, something that Hoyle had no way of ever knowing, as science was not up there yet).

Nice try, but still no large tabacco filled product neighbor.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The junkyard tornado argument is fallacious because a) It's irrelevant to evolution since evolution does not occur via assembly of individual parts but rather selective gradual modifications over countless generations and b) Order rises from chaos all the time.

Creationists mischaracterize evolution as a random process without understanding that natural selection is a non-random selective process applied to the randomness of mutation. They get it fundamentally wrong and everything that follows this assumption is invariably a strawman based on ignorance.

Guys, just because a single web page has a .edu web address (even if its not associated with the appropriate department like the doubting of radiometric analysis on another thread. Indeed its a single page in a computer science dpeartment in a university which has supported creationsism, except in its anthropology and biology departments, where you know people might have some know how?), or a single, dead, academic, from another discipline doubt something, does not mean its wrong.

You want a real academic debate on things like this? Go read how the out of Africa hypothesis, and the convergent evolution of Homo erectus hypothesis caused actual debate, and division in science. That was some equally split scientist arguing their side. Then along came genetic sequencing and lo, convergent evolution was shown to be the least likely answer.

THAT is controversy (at the time) in science. Not this hackneyed amateur theater stuff you guys are pulling.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Except Evolution and the origin of life are not separate.

As I said in an earlier post:

=> The end result of the Abiogenesis process is the "existence of life",
=> The initial condition for the Evolutionary process is "existence of life"

The two can certainly be considered separately as fields of study. Of course evolution cannot happen if there is no life, and how life started is an interesting and rewarding field of study.

It is true that they are linked by the existential fact of life itself, but they are NOT THE SAME THING. There was clearly a sequence of events or states:

1: no life
2: something happened
3: life
4: evolution of life

We know for a certainty that these 4 events or states happened. It is intuitively obvious, "belief" does not enter into it, it is derived from observed fact and logical thought. Since that is so, why do you find it impossible that people can study the state number 4 "evolution of life" without understanding what number 2 is?

There is absolutely nothing in that 4 step sequence that could offend anyone of any religious persuasion except possibly a young Earth creationist - and in fact, YECs should not be offended either as far as I'm concerned.

The Bible actually describes each step in detail. The story of the Tower of Babel describes the migration across the world and the development of different languages. I consider this tacit acknowledgment of the evolution of mankind and by extension the animal and plant kingdom. Obviously the bronze age authors did not know of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, but they obviously understood that things don't stay the same forever.

Furthermore, even if the YEC's are correct, and the entire universe was created somewhere between 6000 and 10000 years ago, then the Creator went to a lot of effort to ensure that it LOOKED like it was created 14 billion years ago. If the Creator went to all that trouble just to 'trick' us, then why should be respect It?. On the other hand, if the Creator went to all that trouble in order to give us a purpose in life, that is to study and learn about his creation, why should we not follow through with that destiny? In fact God gives Adam that charge in almost the first thing It says to him:

KJV Genesis 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And from "Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary" we read:

Power over the creatures was given to man, and as a proof of this he named them all. It also shows his insight into the works of God.

And from "Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible" we read:

... and this was done to see what he would call them; what names he would give to them; which as it was a trial of the wisdom of man, so a token of his dominion over the creatures, it being an instance of great knowledge of them to give them apt and suitable names, so as to distinguish one from another, and point at something in them that was natural to them, and made them different from each other; for this does not suppose any want of knowledge in God, as if he did this to know what man would do, he knew what names man would give them before he did; but that it might appear he had made one superior to them all in wisdom and power, and for his pleasure, use, and service; and therefore brings them to him, to put them into his hands, and give him authority over them; and being his own, to call them by what names he pleased: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof; it was always afterwards called by it, by him and his posterity, until the confusion of languages...

So we see that God is actually challenging mankind to learn about Its creation. That we continue to do so should be no offense to any one, religious or not.

Finally, Step Number 2 (which Scientists call abiogenesis and which the Judeo/Christian tradition calls 'Genesis') might actually be 'God did it'; personally I doubt it, but it is possible. Whatever it is, it was a necessary precursor to Evolution.

Its like saying we know how a car runs but we know nothing about internal combustion engines...

Extremely bad analogy.

Much better analogy: Its like saying that we know how to DRIVE a car but we know nothing about internal combustion engines.

a reply to: kennyb72

I see the usual crowd of God hating heathens have gathered for their ritual feast of derision and egocentric psudo-science...

You know it is getting really BORING listening to egomaniacs spouting that people who understand Biology are "God hating heathens".

You have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation. Scientists are not "God hating". Most scientists are very spiritual people, whether they are of Judeo/Christian backgrounds or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist or whatever. Even Atheists can be spiritual and most are much more 'Christ-like' than the self described 'Christians' that fill this blog with their hateful screed.

God itself challenged mankind to learn about Its creation. Those who continue to deny the legitimacy of the study of creation cannot legitimately call themselves lovers of God or Its creation.

I call upon you to 'get with the program' or be branded as the God-hater you accuse others of being.