How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: Venkuish1
But there is no evidence the claim you made is correct and there is no derivation or argument made by the author to back up your very confused and unsubstantiated 'conclusion'. There is nothing in the paper so to argue abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible.

Because it is specifically referring to the step of amino acid polymerization. a positive delta G value means the reaction will not forego with thermodynamic favorability.

It looks like you don't even understand the concepts you are using and I am referring to 'random' 'not favourable' 'adaptation' and everything else.

thermodynamic favorability is what is being determined by the free energy equation. This is integral to thermodynamics. I think it's you who doesn't understand it.

You are not going to empirically observe viruses change their genome and characteristics from influenza to polio or from influenza to HIV.

Because evolution is not empirical.

Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment.

Just part of the abstract refutes your argument and it's actually unnecessary as a grade-10 student will be able to refute any creationist.

Nah they dont cite a single example of influenza evolving into something else. Even more absurd is the assumption that the host is "evolving". Semantics aside, evolutionary theory relies on the possibility for a population of organisms to gradually become another organism over time, which has never been exhibited.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
But there is no evidence the claim you made is correct and there is no derivation or argument made by the author to back up your very confused and unsubstantiated 'conclusion'. There is nothing in the paper so to argue abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible.

Because it is specifically referring to the step of amino acid polymerization. a positive delta G value means the reaction will not forego with thermodynamic favorability.

It looks like you don't even understand the concepts you are using and I am referring to 'random' 'not favourable' 'adaptation' and everything else.

thermodynamic favorability is what is being determined by the free energy equation. This is integral to thermodynamics. I think it's you who doesn't understand it.

You are not going to empirically observe viruses change their genome and characteristics from influenza to polio or from influenza to HIV.

Because evolution is not empirical.

Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment.

Just part of the abstract refutes your argument and it's actually unnecessary as a grade-10 student will be able to refute any creationist.

Nah they dont cite a single example of influenza evolving into something else. Even more absurd is the assumption that the host is "evolving". Semantics aside, evolutionary theory relies on the possibility for a population of organisms to gradually become another organism over time, which has never been exhibited.

You are not going to experience the influenza virus evolving to become poliovirus or HIV because you don't even understand the basics when it comes to evolution and especially viral evolution.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#:~:text=Viral%20infection%20is%20a%20highly,adapt%20to%20the%20host%20environment.

Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment.

The research and review papers like the one I ve linked are not talking 'semantics' as you claimed. They are examining the facts as well as stating them before proceeding with their research/review. In the Abstract (beginning of the paper) the author states a fact: viral infection leads to evolutionary changes in both the virus and the hosts

The author and all other authors in biochemical sciences don't debate evolution as it's a settled science. In the eyes of creationist that may not be the case but nobody takes creationism seriously.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
viral infection leads to evolutionary changes in both the virus and the hosts

No, it leads to adaptations. Neither organism has evolved into another distinct organism. If viral infection is the best example you have of evolution then you're really grasping at straws. It was as expected when I first asked you the question.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
But there is no evidence the claim you made is correct and there is no derivation or argument made by the author to back up your very confused and unsubstantiated 'conclusion'. There is nothing in the paper so to argue abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible.

Because it is specifically referring to the step of amino acid polymerization. a positive delta G value means the reaction will not forego with thermodynamic favorability.

It looks like you don't even understand the concepts you are using and I am referring to 'random' 'not favourable' 'adaptation' and everything else.

thermodynamic favorability is what is being determined by the free energy equation. This is integral to thermodynamics. I think it's you who doesn't understand it.

You are not going to empirically observe viruses change their genome and characteristics from influenza to polio or from influenza to HIV.

Because evolution is not empirical.

Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment.

Just part of the abstract refutes your argument and it's actually unnecessary as a grade-10 student will be able to refute any creationist.

Nah they dont cite a single example of influenza evolving into something else. Even more absurd is the assumption that the host is "evolving". Semantics aside, evolutionary theory relies on the possibility for a population of organisms to gradually become another organism over time, which has never been exhibited.

Continuing from my last post...

Nobody takes creationism seriously including the author of the paper you ve linked by:

Bruce Martin who a Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Not only his paper has no relevance to your claims that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible as he makes no such argument regardless of your misinterpretations, but he was one of the editors of the Skeptical Inquirer, fiercely opposed creationism and debunked it whenever he had the chance.

He is on record for saying the following that I needed to state again as it's on the last page.

In contrast, the premise of Intelligent Design fails to meet even the most fundamental elements of rational inquiry. By being able to account for everything by divine edict. Intelligent Design explains nothing.

He takes apart creationism and the nonsensical class made in its name.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
viral infection leads to evolutionary changes in both the virus and the hosts

No, it leads to adaptations. Neither organism has evolved into another distinct organism. If viral infection is the best example you have of evolution then you're really grasping at straws. It was as expected when I first asked you the question.

Adaptation is an evolutionary process.
You have huge gaps in basic knowledge and to claim adaptation is not an evolutionary process it's only something you and other creationists can do. But you follow creationism which is devoid of science.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

I've told you before I do not debate science with non scientists. Get a chemistry book.

Lol phantom you didn't even know the difference between weight and density, you are clearly pretending to be a scientist. No scientist would make such a silly mistake.

You refuse to debate me because you are incapable of doing so.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Adaptation is an evolutionary process.
You have huge gaps in basic knowledge and to claim adaptation is not an evolutionary process it's only something you and other creationists can do. But you follow creationism which is devoid of science.

Nah I know the theory, and I also know it has never been exhibited in a lab. If evolution is true then we have to see populations of organisms evolving into something new... otherwise it is mere speculation. Adaptation mechanisms, such as those orchestrated by epigenetic inheritance, are variabilities built within the organism that allow it to acclimate to various environmental stressors. It's not evolution.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Bruce Martin who a Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Not only his paper has no relevance to your claims that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible as he makes no such argument regardless of your misinterpretations

He wasn't the one who originally found this data, he is investigating it to see how to get around it to make abiogenesis possible. The fact is, over 25 years later and no one has figured it out. I could understand if you say "well science is working on it", but you pretend that amino acid polymerization's unfavorability is not a problem, yet the scientists themselves are studying it because it IS a problem for abiogenesis. You're just another blindly believing atheist that can understand the details of biology.

I'm done repeating myself, I will leave you to your beliefs

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Adaptation is an evolutionary process.
You have huge gaps in basic knowledge and to claim adaptation is not an evolutionary process it's only something you and other creationists can do. But you follow creationism which is devoid of science.

Nah I know the theory, and I also know it has never been exhibited in a lab. If evolution is true then we have to see populations of organisms evolving into something new... otherwise it is mere speculation. Adaptation mechanisms, such as those orchestrated by epigenetic inheritance, are variabilities built within the organism that allow it to acclimate to various environmental stressors. It's not evolution.

You are confused with creationism.

Clearly the author of the power you cited for proof of something supernatural has debunked creationism when he was alive.

You used Professor Bruce Martin to Futher your belief without knowing he was very active and against the creationism nonsense.

Adaptation is an evolutionary process. You need to open a book.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Bruce Martin who a Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Not only his paper has no relevance to your claims that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible as he makes no such argument regardless of your misinterpretations

He wasn't the one who originally found this data, he is investigating it to see how to get around it to make abiogenesis possible. The fact is, over 25 years later and no one has figured it out. I could understand if you say "well science is working on it", but you pretend that amino acid polymerization's unfavorability is not a problem, yet the scientists themselves are studying it because it IS a problem for abiogenesis. You're just another blindly believing atheist that can understand the details of biology.

I'm done repeating myself, I will leave you to your beliefs

Excuses...

The person you cited as having proved abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible never made any claim or written any such paper. On the contrary he was chemistry professor who just like all scientists accepted evolution because of the facts and contributed to battle the misinformation pushed by creationists.

He was one of the editors of the Skeptical Inquirer.

a reply to: cooperton

You completely made that up. You've done that before and got away with it. Personally, I don't giving a flying crap what you think. You're a liar, a fraud and most definitely not a scientist.

I don't debate non scientists, especially idiots who call themselves scientists.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: whereislogic
Is it honest to present a drawing of a bird bone as a drawing of a dinosaur bone to promote the idea that theropod dinosaurs have "hollow bones" (as the term is applied to bird bones)? If some people do that, is it so far-fetched to conclude that this is more akin to propaganda than an honest representation of the evidence or the facts of the matter? Which one gives a better impression of the fact/truth of the matter concerning how dinosaur (therapod) bones look like, drawing #1 or photo #3? Which is more accurate, the drawing or the photo of an actual dinosaur bone?

Bird bone:

dinosaur bones:

Human bone:

Bird bones look more similar to human bones than they do dinosaur bones. Isn't it wild the realizations that one quick assessment of the actual empirical evidence will do?

You're literally comparing 2 different types of cross sections- One is across the center of the bone through the width and it's zoomed on the edge to emphasize how the bone structure gets branched out more and more spaced towards the center. The other cross-section is through the length of the bone, showing a different angle of the inner structure of struts. It's like the difference between cutting against the grain or with the grain.

If giant dinosaurs had dense bones as mammals do, Galileo’s square-cube law shows that they could have never reached their tremendous size without collapsing under their own weight.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

cooperton: Lol phantom you didn't even know the difference between weight and density, you are clearly pretending to be a scientist. No scientist would make such a silly mistake.


phantom: You completely made that up. You've done that before and got away with it. Personally, I don't giving a flying crap what you think. You're a liar, a fraud and most definitely not a scientist.

Let's see who the non-scientist is... Here is your post, where you mixed up density with weight:

originally posted by: Phantom42338

In addition, the water in the mantle is primarily SALINE i.e. salt water. Saline is HEAVIER than most crude oil deposits. Therefore, THE WATER SINKS BELOW the crude oil deposits if there are any.

link to this post

Let me teach you something, it isn't because saline is heavier than crude oil that makes it sink, it's because it is denser than crude oil. You making such a novice mistake proves to me you aren't a scientist. Your comment even got 5 stars, and your most recent one doubling down on your ignorance got you 4 stars, proving it is the blind leading the blind. This is why you are afraid to debate me, because you are bound to make more errors like these that expose you as being either a crappy scientist, or a total fraud.

hahaha game over bud.

a reply to: cooperton
Technically "heavier" is referring to something being denser.

Having a greater specific gravity.

ETA: I don't see "weight" in phantoms post, you pulled that out of thin air to make the argument.

a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong:

Crude oil varies greatly in appearance depending on its composition. It is usually black or dark brown (although it may be yellowish, reddish, or even greenish). In the reservoir it is usually found in association with natural gas, which being lighter forms a gas cap over the petroleum, and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it.

geo.libretexts.org...(Schulte)/12%3A_Geological_Implications/12.04%3A_Petroleum#:~:text=In%20the%20r eservoir%20it%20is%20usually%20found%20in,forms%20of%20crude%20oil%2C%20generally%20sinks%20beneath%20it.


Weight is a measure of the amount of matter in an object , whereas density measures the amount of matter in a unit volume.

Now shut up and go away.

originally posted by: cooperton


Those are monomers you are mentioning though. The thermodynamic difficulty is yielding amino acid or DNA polymers. Unless thermodynamics are different elsewhere in the universe, this would not resolve any hurdles.

If we look at the probability of creating a new protein by random chance mutations, we realize even that is not nearly enough time. Here are some known empirical values regarding mutation rates and quantity estimates ('e' means exponent:

total number of bacteria on earth: 5e30
mutation rate per generation: .003
generation span: 12 hrs on average

First we have to determine how many mutations happen per bacterial line in a year. There are 8760 hrs in 1 year. Therefore 8760 hrs in a year divided by the 12 hrs in a bacterial generation = 730 mutations per year per bacterial generational line.

To determine the total number of mutations of all the bacteria on earth per year we simply multiply the number of bacteria by the number of mutations per bacterial line per year:

5e30 x 730 =3.65e33 global mutations per year

Given that the odds of a beneficial mutation to an enzyme fold are approximately 1 in 1e77 (link), This global mutation rate is clearly not enough to satisfy even one successful enzyme fold change even over trillions upon trillions of year, because 1e77 is wayyyyy greater than 3.65e33

The reason an enzyme fold is so difficult to mutate is because it requires a long sequence of specific DNA changes that must be able to create an electrochemical function capable of performing a specific task. This is the operable part of proteins and enzymes that allow them to do anything at all, so it is absolutely necessary to know how something like this could emerge by simple genetic mutations. And the probabilities are unimaginably low.

Now going back to the 3.65e33 mutations per year for all bacterial life on the planet. If the odds are 1e77, then that means it would take 2.7e43 years just to make ONE successful mutation to an enzyme fold.

That means it would take:

27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years

...to make one functional change to an enzyme fold through mutations to the genetic code. Given that the known universe is theorized to have existed for only around 14,000,000,000 years, we see how insufficient this amount of time is to create proteins through mutating genomes.

It happens to be a lot more than 50 amino acids- So far, 92 different amino acids have been identified in the Murchison meteorite. Of these, only 19 are also found on Earth. These amino acids were predominantly left-handed. Apparently protein has been found in a meteorite, although I'm a bit skeptical- even though the team was led by a Harvard Universiy biochemist- the result has not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. (en.wikipedia.org...) What is really interesting though is this part of the article-

"The research leading to the discovery of Hemolithin started in 2007 when another protein, one of the first to form on Earth, was observed to entrap water. That property being useful to chemistry before biochemistry on earth developed, theoretical enthalpy calculations on the condensation of amino acids were performed in gas phase space asking: “whether amino acids could polymerize to protein in space?” - they could, and their water of condensation aided their polymerization. This led to several manuscripts of isotope and mass information on Hemolithin"

You said - "First we have to determine how many mutations happen per bacterial line in a year. There are 8760 hrs in 1 year. Therefore 8760 hrs in a year divided by the 12 hrs in a bacterial generation = 730 mutations per year per bacterial generational line."

-And then you have to calculate how many bacterial lines exist in a given scenario- planetary or otherwise- which would be impossible to determine, especially on the scale of the galaxy, let alone the universe. You seriously based all your math on 1 single generational line of bacteria for the whole planet? Even if your math did check out- it's based on blind chance. Evolution involves the operation of non-random physical laws upon random events, certainly not the same thing as random blind chance.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
Crude oil varies greatly in appearance depending on its composition. It is usually black or dark brown (although it may be yellowish, reddish, or even greenish). In the reservoir it is usually found in association with natural gas, which being lighter forms a gas cap over the petroleum, and saline water which, being heavier than most forms of crude oil, generally sinks beneath it.

geo.libretexts.org...(Schulte)/12%3A_Geological_Implications/12.04%3A_Petroleum#:~:text=In%20the%20r eservoir%20it%20is%20usually%20found%20in,forms%20of%20crude%20oil%2C%20generally%20sinks%20beneath%20it.


Weight is a measure of the amount of matter in an object , whereas density measures the amount of matter in a unit volume.

Now shut up and go away.

lolol you found some bunk source that also doesn't know the basics. Here are the facts:

"It should also be noted that the weight of an object does not determine whether it sinks or floats in a fluid... The density of an object compared to the density of the fluid it is in determines whether it will sink or float."
link

"Density is the only thing affecting whether something floats or sinks. If an object has a higher density than the fluid it is in (fluid can mean liquid or gas), it will sink. If it has a lower density, it will float."
link

"Density and flotation relationships are fundamental concepts in physics and chemistry. Density refers to the amount of mass per unit volume of a substance, while flotation is the ability of an object to float in a fluid. Understanding the relationship between density and flotation is crucial in various fields, including engineering, geology, and marine science. By comparing the density of an object to the density of the fluid it is placed in, we can determine whether the object will sink or float. "
link

difference between weight and density

"why does density determine if something will float?"

If you notice, when you search "why does oil float on water", it immediately tells you it is density, not weight. So not only did you pretend not to make this mistake, then I find it and post it, and now you're returning to pretending it was right the whole time. Just take the L and admit you were wrong.

Look at all those stars lololol, everyone is so desperate for you to be right, despite you being absolutely wrong. "go read a chemistry textbook"

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
-And then you have to calculate how many bacterial lines exist in a given scenario- planetary or otherwise- which would be impossible to determine, especially on the scale of the galaxy, let alone the universe. You seriously based all your math on 1 single generational line of bacteria for the whole planet?

No I based it as though every bacteria on the planet counted as a bacterial line. Even if we consider this for 1 trillion planets being habitable for life in the universe, and thereby multiply a trillion (1e12) from the probability, it still would take 2.7e43 x 1e-12 = 2.7e31 years to make one beneficial mutation to a functional group.

"The research leading to the discovery of Hemolithin started in 2007 when another protein, one of the first to form on Earth, was observed to entrap water. That property being useful to chemistry before biochemistry on earth developed, theoretical enthalpy calculations on the condensation of amino acids were performed in gas phase space asking: “whether amino acids could polymerize to protein in space?” - they could, and their water of condensation aided their polymerization. This led to several manuscripts of isotope and mass information on Hemolithin"

Interesting, is there some experimental data to show this? From what i've seen, they've only found amino acids on meteorites, not polymers. I, like you, am also skeptical that there isn't some sort of contamination. There's even amino acids in the atmosphere so it would be rather difficult for anything entering earth to not get contaminated.

originally posted by: cooperton
Density refers to the amount of mass per unit volume of a substance...

The bolded part is the crux, when referring to substances without indicating a volume it is understood that "heavier" means one equal volume of one thing compared to an equal volume of the other makes one heavier than the other.

It's like the trick question of which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of steel. They both weigh a pound but have different volumes.

When someone says gold is heavier than lead, it is understood that if you have equal volumes, the gold will be heavier because it is denser.

Since phantom never mentioned weight or volumes it is understood that they were talking about density, except by you, who wanted to try and pull a gotcha.

originally posted by: cooperton
...it still would take 2.7e43 x 1e-12 = 2.7e31 years to make one beneficial mutation to a functional group.

But it could also happen on day one, and then another beneficial mutation every week, or month.

Nobody really knows.