Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Evolution is believed totally by blind faith and is a complete mathematical impossibility...

That's a blatant lie.

talkorigins.org...

Please refute one or more of the pieces of hard evidence backed by research papers here. We know what is going to happen LOL! Again, quote mines and opinions are not research, sorry.

And you have the audacity to ask ME for proof?

Yes, I do because you have posted lies and you routinely slander scientists over your anecdotes while never actually even looking at the evidence. You just appeal to the opinions of creationist shills and treat it like research, when it's just an opinion.

Did you also ask for proof from all your teachers who told you that the abiogenesis hypothesis is a valid theory?

Abiogenesis is a series of hypotheses, and yes that is how it is taught in school, as HYPOTHESES, not fact or scientific theory.

Go ahead and back up your "mathematical odds" against evolution. It's funny how dishonest people are. There are no odds against evolution, it's slam dunk proven. Abiogenesis is a work in progress, not proved yet. Big difference.

originally posted by: vasaga
Always these kinds of replies... Tell me something. Is this reply an admittance that right now we have nothing to support abiogenesis? Because that's what it sounds like.

It's got several supporting experiments. You guys are so dishonest that you think science is either all or nothing. LMAO. Just leave the scientists alone and let them continue to work. Fighting them every step of the way is ridiculous.

The difficulty of an experiment doesn't somehow validate a hypothesis or a theory. Aren't people here always the ones claiming that evidence should be the basis to believe a theory? If we are incapable of producing results right now, that means there is no support.

Nobody said that not knowing everything validates the hypothesis, however the anti-science crowd IS saying that not knowing everything is the equivalent of knowing nothing, which is completely bunk. It is a work in progress, a lot is known, but not everything yet. Successful experiments are what help to validate a hypothesis and there are several.

That's the mentality that I despise. For the things that are convenient to the mainstream narrative, a bunch of endless excuses are given, but for anything else, skepticism (even though denial is a better word) is seen as rational. It's disgusting.

Endless excuses??? Nobody is claiming that abiogenesis has been proved, they are admitting that it is a hypothesis. The only reason people are even defending it is because dishonest creationists are in here attacking it and pretending that there is no support for it (claiming impossible) when there is quite a bunch of supporting experiments. I despise the mentality of ignoring science in favor of blind faith and automatically rejecting things that are still being worked on with no logical reason whatsoever.

a reply to: Barcs

I'll simply be leaving this post here again. Not going to repeat myself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Barcs

"This claim of all species changing into other species..." Has been proved.

Which is the opposite of:

originally posted by: Barcs
It is a work in progress

You should make up your mind. You just keep changing the goal posts

originally posted by: Barcs

talkorigins.org...

Please refute one or more of the pieces of hard evidence backed by research papers here.

Ahh great, a game of go-fish. How about you pick an empirical observation made in any one of those papers and say why it proves evolution. We can go paper by paper. You have yet to demonstrate you can actually extract meaning and critique the methods of a scientific article.

a reply to: vasaga

And I'll just post this video again. I'm not going to repeat myself that there ARE successful experiments and quote mines of opinions don't qualify as contradictory research.



Start at 5 minutes in, he explains all of the experiments that were done while your post is mostly opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture. Claiming no successful abiogenesis experiments is flat out wrong. MANY have been done, they just haven't figured the whole thing out yet.

originally posted by: cooperton

This claim of all species changing into other species...:

"Has been proved."

Which is the opposite of:

"It is a work in progress"

You should make up your mind. You just keep changing the goal posts

Why are you dishonestly misrepresenting me? The first quote was in reference to EVOLUTION. The second one was about ABIOGENESIS. Are you really that desperate for arguments, that you have to cherry pick my quotes out of context like that? That is pathetic, dude.

Ahh great, a game of go-fish. How about you pick an empirical observation made in any one of those papers and say why it proves evolution.

Because that ain't how it works, pal. You already know this. Evolution is proved by all of the evidence put together, not one single piece or another. You can pick anything you want on that list. Any one. Your choice. Chances are if you can't refute a single one, you can't refute all of them.

originally posted by: Barcs

Because that ain't how it works, pal. You already know this. Evolution is proved by all of the evidence put together, not one single piece or another. You can pick anything you want on that list. Any one. Your choice. Chances are if you can't refute a single one, you can't refute all of them.

Yes that is how it works, those presenting the theory have to defend it. It is not our responsibility to prove a negative. But I can say how your sources do not prove evolution

First off, "homology", which is the presence of similar anatomical structures or biochemical patterns among diverse groups of animals, mentioned in your link as proof, by no means proves evolution. Homology would be expected with an intelligent design model as well because you would expect phenotypically similar organisms to have similar biochemistry. Just like you would expect a macbook air to have more similarities with a macbook pro than it would a garage door opener. It's really an expected conclusion regardless of the origin model.

The horse blinders prevent you from seeing other possibilities. If you have a red lens, everything will appear red. But in actuality there are more colors, and more comprehensive views on reality can be obtained when evolutionary theory (the red lens) is thrown away. Yes organisms and populations adapt, but it is unfounded in the scientific research that one kind of organism can change into another kind.

Want me to go through all of them explaining why it does not prove evolution? Or should we just save everyone time and you redact the statement that evolution is proven?

It's true, there is no evidence of a species changing into another, different species.

That's not what evolution is about, anyway.

It's not about science, it's merely called 'science'.


In genuine science, they consider all the evidence, and follow it. They would never, ever, have ignored it all, like it never existed.


Sad.

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's true, there is no evidence of a species changing into another, different species.

That's not what evolution is about, anyway.

It's not about science, it's merely called 'science'.


In genuine science, they consider all the evidence, and follow it. They would never, ever, have ignored it all, like it never existed.


Sad.

No, what’s sad is that you keep repeating the same tired line as if you’re reading from script and not actually Thinking for yourself. What even more sad is that anytime someone counters your ignorant rhetoric with actual facts and hard science, you simply ignore the information as if it never existed and simply repeat selected portions of your script. If there’s zero evidence of evolution then why do you not address hard facts like the genetic and morphological data culled from Sima de los Huesos showing clear intermediate transitions from H. Heidelbergensis to Denisovan. Why have you yet attempted to falsify the science that you claim doesn’t exist? It should be an incredibly simple task for you to accomplish right? And that’s just a single exemplar of 1000’s

No.

They have assumed it is a 'clear transition', based on other, earlier assumptions, and so on...


These people have one, and only one, actual goal - to suggest there is valid, consistent examples of evidence, for all/any species changing into other, different species.

Nothing else, but that goal, is desired.


How would they actually find valid evidence for what they claim?


When has any prior example ever happened, or ever indicated it would/might eventually happen - among our many millions of unique species, today? None. What would that suggest here?


What would they suggest is not found in even one, single case, ever known to exist, and no indication of it, ever to happen in future, either.


This does not mean it cannot happen, but when all of the available evidence shows it doesn't happen, chances are it didn't ever happen, before.


If you believe it is not evidence, against their claim, ignorance is not a reason.


When I see you, or anyone, explain that evidence shows a transition of one species, into another species, it ignores all of the valid, genuine evidence that shows nothing has 'transitioned' into another species. As if it didn't even exist. You look at what YOU say is 'evidence', which you try to interpret as being evidence, as if nothing else is 'evidence'....


Sheesh.

originally posted by: peter vlar

No, what’s sad is that you keep repeating the same tired line as if you’re reading from script and not actually Thinking for yourself. What even more sad is that anytime someone counters your ignorant rhetoric with actual facts and hard science, you simply ignore the information as if it never existed and simply repeat selected portions of your script. If there’s zero evidence of evolution then why do you not address hard facts like the genetic and morphological data culled from Sima de los Huesos showing clear intermediate transitions from H. Heidelbergensis to Denisovan. Why have you yet attempted to falsify the science that you claim doesn’t exist? It should be an incredibly simple task for you to accomplish right? And that’s just a single exemplar of 1000’s

Thanks for the reference to Sima de los Huesos. No matter what you guys think I do remain as objective as possible. The cranial capacity of both Homo Heidelbergensis and Denisovan is approximately the same as Homo Sapien. There is no reason to conclude that these are evolutionary transition fossils any more than we should conclude that they are human remains with a few distinct anatomical features. Especially considering the differences between Mongoloid, Capoid, Congoid Australoid, Congoid, and Caucasoid skulls... because surely we wouldn't distinguish any of these five types of skulls as different species:



Yet the differences among these five types of known human skulls could easily include the morphological variability demonstrated in H Heidelbergensis. To conclude this is a transitional fossil rather than another human skull would be jumping to conclusions. The scientific community assumes evolution to be true, and perceives all empirical findings as a demonstration of its validity, despite it not being conclusive at all - it is just another human fossil.

a reply to: Barcs

A peer reviewed scientific paper that does not conform to your pre-conceived beliefs is opinion and unsubstantiaed conjecture. Got it.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yes that is how it works, those presenting the theory have to defend it. It is not our responsibility to prove a negative. But I can say how your sources do not prove evolution

I already did defend it. I posted a comprehensive list of evidence all backed by scientific research. We have presented our case, and you have not refuted a single thing on the list nor made any counter points to that. What more do you want??? Why are you so unwilling to even LOOK at the evidence?

First off, "homology", which is the presence of similar anatomical structures or biochemical patterns among diverse groups of animals, mentioned in your link as proof, by no means proves evolution. Homology would be expected with an intelligent design model as well because you would expect phenotypically similar organisms to have similar biochemistry. Just like you would expect a macbook air to have more similarities with a macbook pro than it would a garage door opener. It's really an expected conclusion regardless of the origin model.

You really think that homology is the ONE and only thing that verifies evolution? I already told you clearly that evolution is backed by all the evidence together, not one individual piece that proves everything. You have failed to offer any refutation, you just essentially said it doesn't count based on absolutely nothing. Your inability to refute a single thing about evolution says all I need to know. Nice straw man with the macbook comparison LOL!

Want me to go through all of them explaining why it does not prove evolution? Or should we just save everyone time and you redact the statement that evolution is proven?

I'd like you to REFUTE a single one instead of just arbitrarily saying they don't count because each individual thing doesn't prove the entire theory. You are being intentionally dishonest.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

A peer reviewed scientific paper that does not conform to your pre-conceived beliefs is opinion and unsubstantiaed conjecture. Got it.

LMAO! What paper are you referring to???

originally posted by: cooperton
No matter what you guys think I do remain as objective as possible. The cranial capacity of both Homo Heidelbergensis and Denisovan is approximately the same as Homo Sapien.

What are you talking about? Objective as possible, yet you blatantly lie here? There are no Denisovan skulls found, the cranial capacity is not known. The largest homo sapien skull is almost 1000CC larger than the largest heidelbergensis skull as well. Homo sapien is larger even the average is bigger. This argument is not convincing in the slightest.

There is no reason to conclude that these are evolutionary transition fossils any more than we should conclude that they are human remains with a few distinct anatomical features.

Well yeah, homo heidelbergensis are consider human. They are one of the more recent ancestors, so of course they will be more similar to modern humans. Go back to homo erectus or homo habilis and no surprise, the skulls are smaller and continue to get smaller the further back you go. You don't have a clue.

Yet the differences among these five types of known human skulls could easily include the morphological variability demonstrated in H Heidelbergensis. To conclude this is a transitional fossil rather than another human skull would be jumping to conclusions. The scientific community assumes evolution to be true, and perceives all empirical findings as a demonstration of its validity, despite it not being conclusive at all - it is just another human fossil.

LOL! Now go get some scientific research to back that conclusion. You are just blindly denying it again. Maybe you don't get what a human is? At this point you should just save yourself further embarrassment and take a break from the anti evolution crusade. You haven't had a real argument in years.

a reply to: cooperton

You begin with an entirely false premise, that the cranial capacity of H. Heidelbergensis is the same as H. Sapiens Sapiens and do is that if Denisovan so you’re completely fabricating data at this point. We don’t have a single confirmed complete crania from any Denisovan remains. Only teeth and toes. Heidelbergensis topped out at 1100 cubic centimeters where as the low end for us is 1200 and a high end of 1450.

Then you use archaic classification to compare cranial anatomy and then you ended with a statement that you seem to believe is fact but haven’t supported the position at all. Not even an attempt To use anything resembling facts to support your decision that Heidelbergensis would fall within the mean for current cranial morphological traits while nisrepresentinftgeircranial capacity. Furthermore, you haven’t taken into consideration whether or not their brain structures were similar or dissimilar to our own. Neanderthal for example, have a different organizational structure in their brains which gives them better sight but less social skill. Cranial capacity isn’t the end all be all. You hyperfocus on some small details and ignore the big picture. In paleoanthropology, we have to keep our eyes on the entire picture while tracking all of the little details as well. The bottom line though is that the last paragraph above, is simply your opinion and isn’t based in anything other than your own confirmation biases against the MES

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

A peer reviewed scientific paper that does not conform to your pre-conceived beliefs is opinion and unsubstantiaed conjecture. Got it.

LMAO! What paper are you referring to???

The one you called unsubstantiated conjecture, because it doesn't fit your beliefs. I'll do you a favor... Even though I can expect a bunch of excuses as a reply;

www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

A peer reviewed scientific paper that does not conform to your pre-conceived beliefs is opinion and unsubstantiaed conjecture. Got it.

LMAO! What paper are you referring to???

The one you called unsubstantiated conjecture, because it doesn't fit your beliefs. I'll do you a favor... Even though I can expect a bunch of excuses as a reply;

www.sciencedirect.com...

Dude, that paper didn't back up any claims made by you or Coop, nor did it conflict with anything I said in the post you replied to. Your post was 90% opinions and then this unrelated paper.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

You begin with an entirely false premise, that the cranial capacity of H. Heidelbergensis is the same as H. Sapiens Sapiens and do is that if Denisovan so you’re completely fabricating data at this point. We don’t have a single confirmed complete crania from any Denisovan remains. Only teeth and toes. Heidelbergensis topped out at 1100 cubic centimeters

according to "Homo heidelbergensis - Key physical features" (2017) the cranial capacity of the supposed H. Heidelbergensis is 1250 cubic centimeters - this falls in the range of 1200-1450 of the cranial capacity of an average human. The evidence speaks for itself, this thing was human.

Face it, the idea that this is a transitional fossil, or another species, is purely speculation.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Barcs

A peer reviewed scientific paper that does not conform to your pre-conceived beliefs is opinion and unsubstantiaed conjecture. Got it.

LMAO! What paper are you referring to???

The one you called unsubstantiated conjecture, because it doesn't fit your beliefs. I'll do you a favor... Even though I can expect a bunch of excuses as a reply;

www.sciencedirect.com...

Dude, that paper didn't back up any claims made by you or Coop, nor did it conflict with anything I said in the post you replied to. Your post was 90% opinions and then this unrelated paper.

They were all DIRECT quotes from the paper. But thanks for the excuses, as predicted.