Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

a reply to: coomba98

o.O
That first part was a quote of you........
The stuff after was my response.
How did you not figure that out?

Are you really that....... I won't finish that thought.

a reply to: cooperton

Here you go, Coop!





2 minutes into the second video, he explains the entire evolutionary process step by step with a visual 3D diagram. Pay particular attention to that part. Irreducible complexity is a joke of an argument. He's got a similar video on the eye.

originally posted by: Barcs
Irreducible complexity is a joke of an argument.

No it's something that biologists acknowledge as a hurdle for evolutionary theory:

"Elucidating the origins of complex biological structures has been one of the major challenges of evolutionary studies." source

^that is from the paper they mention in the video you posted. They are trying to come up with an explanation as to how these complex combination of 24 necessary proteins could have all accumulated at once. This is irreducible complexity. Can you explain why you think irreducible complexity is a joke of an argument??? These scientists know they have to address it, and they try their best to find a solution. All quaternary proteins (multiple proteins coming together to form a larger protein) are irreducibly complex. Not to mention the difficulty in arranging these proteins in a coherent manner.

Darwin was right, if there ever was found a series of biological constituents that relied on other parts for their complete function, the entire theory of evolution would be ruined.

a reply to: cooperton

LOL! You completely ignored what was said in the video. It is NOT irreducibly complex, they have shown how it CAN arise incrementally, which is enough to prove it's not impossible, which is your claim.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

LOL! You completely ignored what was said in the video. It is NOT irreducibly complex, they have shown how it CAN arise incrementally, which is enough to prove it's not impossible, which is your claim.

Ahh good the infallible youtube video that must be true without a doubt because it supports your claim. Take away MotA from the quaternary structure of the flagellar protein complex and it will not work. or how would it pass through the outer membrane without secretin? And how would it be placed correctly without the chaperone protein? You see, it is absolutely irreducibly complex because these components need to be present for it to function properly.

This is why you need to understand these things on your own, and be able to explain them on your own, rather than pointing to videos with insufficient explanations for the point you are trying to make.

originally posted by: Barcs

...Map a genome for a parent, then map the genome for the offspring. Bang, you can see the exact genetic mutations from generation to generation. Then you can see bigger differences by looking at the various races. ...

Researchers studying people from different continents have found that the differences in DNA between any two randomly chosen individuals from virtually anywhere in the world amounted to about 0.5 percent. And 86 to 90 percent of those differences occurred within any one racial group. Therefore, just 14 percent or less of the 0.5 percent variation occurred between racial groups.

Because “humans are genetically homogeneous,” says the journal Nature, “genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.” Such thinking is not new. Beginning in 1950 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published a series of statements intended to combat racism. The statements were authored by anthropologists, geneticists, and sociologists. In 1978 UNESCO stated that “all human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock.”—Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978.

The facts in the fields of genetics and molecular biology provide evidence for or point to the reality that:

“[God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.”—Acts 17:26.

"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." (Antony Flew, philosopher, explaining his renounciation of philosophical naturalism and atheism)

Watching the World: Awake!—2005

Atheist Turns to God

A British philosophy professor who has been called “the world’s most influential atheist” now says that he believes in God. In an online preview of an interview scheduled to be published in the journal Philosophia Christi, 81-year-old Dr. Antony Flew said that he “had to go where the evidence leads.” According to Flew, this evidence includes recent scientific discoveries in the fields of cosmology and physics. Additionally, “the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design,” he explained. Even the “biblical account [of Genesis chapter one] might be scientifically accurate,” he states. So, is he ready to become a practicing Christian? “It’s very unlikely,” he says. However, “if I wanted any sort of future life I should become a Jehovah’s Witness.”

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

It is NOT irreducibly complex, they have shown how it CAN arise incrementally, which is enough to prove it's not impossible, which is your claim.

To you perhaps, but regrettably for you and those promoting the fancy storylines in this manner, a fancy storyline that has no relation to reality and no evidence to back up even a single (incremental*) step described around 2 minutes into the 2nd video, doesn't quite do the trick, especially if one isn't a biased beholder looking to have their ears tickled.

*: incremental as in the overarching evolutionary storyline, over multiple generations of organisms through the means of mutations acted upon by natural selection; not incremental as in how these systems are put together and regulated in one particular organism when they are first put together, often inappropiately referred to as self-assembly, for motivations I won't get into now but are related to terms such as "self-organizational scenarios" in origin of life studies. Ah well, because it's slightly related to the non-existing evidence to back up even a single (incremental) step described around 2 minutes into the 2nd video you used, might as well share this video that uses that term I just mentioned:

In the end, it's just the same trick as is used regarding the supposed evolution of the eye as explained in the video below from 9:18 - 12:48:

More trickery and 'blurring the lines while capitalizing on the ambiguity of language or spreading some if there isn't enough ambiguity'*-behaviour regarding stories about the evolution of the eye are discussed from 2:47 - 4:31 below (*: regarding the meaning of the word "eye" this time, they do it too regarding the meaning of the concept of "life" or what is alive and what is not, blurring the lines for their storylines regarding the origin of life, referring to intelligently modified glorified soap bubbles as "protocells" for example if we're talking about Jack Zsostak's research and publications as used and referred to in one of the most watched videos on youtube about abiogenesis, OK, total side issue):

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

LOL! You completely ignored what was said in the video. It is NOT irreducibly complex, they have shown how it CAN arise incrementally, which is enough to prove it's not impossible, which is your claim.

Ahh good the infallible youtube video that must be true without a doubt because it supports your claim. Take away MotA from the quaternary structure of the flagellar protein complex and it will not work. or how would it pass through the outer membrane without secretin? And how would it be placed correctly without the chaperone protein? You see, it is absolutely irreducibly complex because these components need to be present for it to function properly.

This is why you need to understand these things on your own, and be able to explain them on your own, rather than pointing to videos with insufficient explanations for the point you are trying to make.

You repeat the same exact fallacy as earlier in the thread. Why would you TAKE AWAY something from a flagellum and expect it to be normal? Evolution is INCREMENTAL CHANGE, I've told you this dozens upon dozens of times. It bears no affect on whether you can remove a piece from it and still be functional. If you want to prove it is IMPOSSIBLE as your claim, you need to show that it CANNOT develop in incremental stages. The video I gave you showed exactly how it is possible so until you have an argument against that, your claims are still unsubstantiated. IC is not applicable to evolution or abiogenesis. It's a creationist fallacy.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Researchers studying people from different continents have found that the differences in DNA between any two randomly chosen individuals from virtually anywhere in the world amounted to about 0.5 percent. And 86 to 90 percent of those differences occurred within any one racial group. Therefore, just 14 percent or less of the 0.5 percent variation occurred between racial groups.

Yes and that makes sense because they are still the same species. If you compare humans to chimps, the difference is 3% give or take. If a 3% difference can show THAT much change, then obviously a .5% difference could show a much more minor change like the slight variations within races. Compare a human vs a chimp and then a black guy to a white guy. There is no comparison. The black and white people are much much much more similar.

The facts in the fields of genetics and molecular biology provide evidence for or point to the reality that:

“[God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.”—Acts 17:26.

Nope. There are no facts whatsoever that support that bible claim, sorry. You post more JW propaganda. It's not a valid argument against science. And more theists become atheists than the inverse. Cherry picking a few example of that has absolutely ZERO to do with abiogenesis, the topic of this thread. You can't equate science to atheism. It's 100% fallacious, they are completely different things.

To you perhaps, but regrettably for you and those promoting the fancy storylines in this manner, a fancy storyline that has no relation to reality and no evidence to back up even a single (incremental*) step described around 2 minutes into the 2nd video, doesn't quite do the trick, especially if one isn't a biased beholder looking to have their ears tickled.

LOL! Are you talking about the bible here? I already posted the experiments that show several of those incremental steps, but hey, plug your ears and call it fantasy while offering NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. Sounds logical. Stephen Meyer peddles pseudo-science. Not a single thing he claims about design can be confirmed via testable evidence. He essentially just says that it's super complex and contains information, therefor design. It's an appeal to ignorance. Funny how you blindly accept what he says, but ignore ALL scientific research that shows parts of abiogenesis, or the research the confirms evolution as a process 100%. Literally all you post are creationist OPINIONS in youtube videos and JW propaganda. That doesn't refute any of the research or experiments, sorry.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: turbonium1

No answer is an answer. You confirmed what we all knew - you have no evidence, only an opinion. An opinion based on an opinion.

As I always said, people like you disappear into the aether. But just like Cooperton, you'll show up again with more "opinions" and more garbage. Just remember we'll be here to respond.

All species on Earth, reproducing the exact same species, isn't evidence to you??!!

Amazing...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: whereislogic
Researchers studying people from different continents have found that the differences in DNA between any two randomly chosen individuals from virtually anywhere in the world amounted to about 0.5 percent. And 86 to 90 percent of those differences occurred within any one racial group. Therefore, just 14 percent or less of the 0.5 percent variation occurred between racial groups.

Yes and that makes sense because they are still the same species. If you compare humans to chimps, the difference is 3% give or take. If a 3% difference can show THAT much change, then obviously a .5% difference could show a much more minor change like the slight variations within races. Compare a human vs a chimp and then a black guy to a white guy. There is no comparison. The black and white people are much much much more similar.

The facts in the fields of genetics and molecular biology provide evidence for or point to the reality that:

“[God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.”—Acts 17:26.

Nope. There are no facts whatsoever that support that bible claim, sorry. You post more JW propaganda. It's not a valid argument against science. And more theists become atheists than the inverse. Cherry picking a few example of that has absolutely ZERO to do with abiogenesis, the topic of this thread. You can't equate science to atheism. It's 100% fallacious, they are completely different things.

To you perhaps, but regrettably for you and those promoting the fancy storylines in this manner, a fancy storyline that has no relation to reality and no evidence to back up even a single (incremental*) step described around 2 minutes into the 2nd video, doesn't quite do the trick, especially if one isn't a biased beholder looking to have their ears tickled.

LOL! Are you talking about the bible here? I already posted the experiments that show several of those incremental steps, but hey, plug your ears and call it fantasy while offering NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. Sounds logical. Stephen Meyer peddles pseudo-science. Not a single thing he claims about design can be confirmed via testable evidence. He essentially just says that it's super complex and contains information, therefor design. It's an appeal to ignorance. Funny how you blindly accept what he says, but ignore ALL scientific research that shows parts of abiogenesis, or the research the confirms evolution as a process 100%. Literally all you post are creationist OPINIONS in youtube videos and JW propaganda. That doesn't refute any of the research or experiments, sorry.

The 3% difference is not based on any type of 'evolution'.

That's like saying trees 'evolved' into wood tables, because both of them are made of the very same type of wood!!

If we didn't know how to build tables, and tables existed already, we'd say tables 'evolved' from trees, over millions of years!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: whereislogic
Researchers studying people from different continents have found that the differences in DNA between any two randomly chosen individuals from virtually anywhere in the world amounted to about 0.5 percent. And 86 to 90 percent of those differences occurred within any one racial group. Therefore, just 14 percent or less of the 0.5 percent variation occurred between racial groups.

Yes and that makes sense because they are still the same species. If you compare humans to chimps, the difference is 3% give or take. If a 3% difference can show THAT much change, then obviously a .5% difference could show a much more minor change like the slight variations within races. Compare a human vs a chimp and then a black guy to a white guy. There is no comparison. The black and white people are much much much more similar.

The facts in the fields of genetics and molecular biology provide evidence for or point to the reality that:

“[God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.”—Acts 17:26.

Nope. There are no facts whatsoever that support that bible claim, sorry. You post more JW propaganda. It's not a valid argument against science. And more theists become atheists than the inverse. Cherry picking a few example of that has absolutely ZERO to do with abiogenesis, the topic of this thread. You can't equate science to atheism. It's 100% fallacious, they are completely different things.

To you perhaps, but regrettably for you and those promoting the fancy storylines in this manner, a fancy storyline that has no relation to reality and no evidence to back up even a single (incremental*) step described around 2 minutes into the 2nd video, doesn't quite do the trick, especially if one isn't a biased beholder looking to have their ears tickled.

LOL! Are you talking about the bible here? I already posted the experiments that show several of those incremental steps, but hey, plug your ears and call it fantasy while offering NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. Sounds logical. Stephen Meyer peddles pseudo-science. Not a single thing he claims about design can be confirmed via testable evidence. He essentially just says that it's super complex and contains information, therefor design. It's an appeal to ignorance. Funny how you blindly accept what he says, but ignore ALL scientific research that shows parts of abiogenesis, or the research the confirms evolution as a process 100%. Literally all you post are creationist OPINIONS in youtube videos and JW propaganda. That doesn't refute any of the research or experiments, sorry.

The 3% difference is not based on any type of 'evolution'.

That's like saying trees 'evolved' into wood tables, because both of them are made of the very same type of wood!!

We need to add a dislike button on this website or at least an ignore feature. This guy just doesn't stop the BS and every time he is refuted he ignores it and just repeats the same nonsense.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: whereislogic
Researchers studying people from different continents have found that the differences in DNA between any two randomly chosen individuals from virtually anywhere in the world amounted to about 0.5 percent. And 86 to 90 percent of those differences occurred within any one racial group. Therefore, just 14 percent or less of the 0.5 percent variation occurred between racial groups.

Yes and that makes sense because they are still the same species. If you compare humans to chimps, the difference is 3% give or take. If a 3% difference can show THAT much change, then obviously a .5% difference could show a much more minor change like the slight variations within races. Compare a human vs a chimp and then a black guy to a white guy. There is no comparison. The black and white people are much much much more similar.

The facts in the fields of genetics and molecular biology provide evidence for or point to the reality that:

“[God] made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.”—Acts 17:26.

Nope. There are no facts whatsoever that support that bible claim, sorry. You post more JW propaganda. It's not a valid argument against science. And more theists become atheists than the inverse. Cherry picking a few example of that has absolutely ZERO to do with abiogenesis, the topic of this thread. You can't equate science to atheism. It's 100% fallacious, they are completely different things.

To you perhaps, but regrettably for you and those promoting the fancy storylines in this manner, a fancy storyline that has no relation to reality and no evidence to back up even a single (incremental*) step described around 2 minutes into the 2nd video, doesn't quite do the trick, especially if one isn't a biased beholder looking to have their ears tickled.

LOL! Are you talking about the bible here? I already posted the experiments that show several of those incremental steps, but hey, plug your ears and call it fantasy while offering NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. Sounds logical. Stephen Meyer peddles pseudo-science. Not a single thing he claims about design can be confirmed via testable evidence. He essentially just says that it's super complex and contains information, therefor design. It's an appeal to ignorance. Funny how you blindly accept what he says, but ignore ALL scientific research that shows parts of abiogenesis, or the research the confirms evolution as a process 100%. Literally all you post are creationist OPINIONS in youtube videos and JW propaganda. That doesn't refute any of the research or experiments, sorry.

The 3% difference is not based on any type of 'evolution'.

That's like saying trees 'evolved' into wood tables, because both of them are made of the very same type of wood!!

We need to add a dislike button on this website or at least an ignore feature. This guy just doesn't stop the BS and every time he is refuted he ignores it and just repeats the same nonsense.

I'm not the one claiming something that doesn't exist, has no evidence for it, you are...

Species don't 'evolve' into another, different species. All species are the same species, as before, and that's the reality here.

Your claim is absurd, get over it.

Abiogenesis is the stupidest concept I've ever heard! So a rock turns into a lobster. Not buying it, sorry.

Evolution is a treacherous 'anti-science'.


Real science looks at all the evidence available, first of all.

It then looks at all of the other, unconfirmed evidence, and tries to confirm if it is valid evidence, or if is not valid evidence.

But evolution ignores all the available evidence, which shows it is anti-science.

Species do not transform into another species, never has, never does, never will. Every species on Earth, whether extinct, or living today, is the same species, always.

I'd like to know what has better evidence than mine, with over a quadrillion examples, against one offering none at all...


This anti-science of 'evolution' should never have been presented, and deserves a special place, in eternal hell.


Science should look at the evidence, and work from there. Science isn't about taking sides. If evidence supports some type of creation of all life forms, this would suggest there is a creator(s) of all life, and then, science simply follows along, from that point. How was life created is taken properly, using the actual evidence, and that's the only way science will ever find the truth. At least, we'd know we tried our best.

No Personal Insults Allowed

Personal insults to each other is not allowed anywhere on ATS.

Do not reply to this post.