Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   From protobionts to living cells
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 1 of 48 (496707)
01-30-2009 2:50 AM


Embarrassing chinks in the evolutionary armor
From its very foundation evolution bumps into some funny and downright embarrassing walls. The idea of a membranous droplet, the so called protobiont apparantly proto to all living matter, developing RNA devoid of a single organelle to assist the process is farfetched in its entirety. It is heretical and a waste of intelligence.
The above mentioned scenario has no foothold in reality, and it certainly has never occured in some distant past especially under the blind guidance of mother nature it would take only a miracle to be able to produce such a mind-bending result.
The above conclusion was reached as a result of the following evidence. For a protobiont to have existed in the oceans of early earth it first had to resist the abrasive conditions of early earth, especially the continued exposure to intense UV radiation, and inescapable encounters with aggressive free radicals such as superoxides.
Radicals are formed as a result of ionisation, they are majorly unstable and are known to attack chemical bonds, in living matter they ricochet wildly and damage cells, they especially devastate cell walls fiddle with RNA as well as enzymes. In the context of early earth which did not have a protective ozone shield radicals must have been as commomn as water vapor iteslf, as such protobionts constantly crossed paths with radicals and were annihilated, their rudimentary membranes stood no chance plus unlike many animals living today they lacked defensive mechansisms like SOD that counters the effects of superoxides.
In the face of such voilent conditions how in the world did this structures survive, if prolonged sunlight exposure is also harmful to the complex cells of eukaryotes with SOD's and in the presence of an ozone layer how then can we even begin to suggest that somehow the protobionts survived and even had the time to evolve RNA and other complex carbon compounds. If you ask me something doesn't add up here.
Edited by Cedre, : Lack of evidence
Edited by Cedre, : edit title
Edited by Cedre, : edit title
Edited by AdminModulous, : Adding white space for readability

Accepted knowledge is by no means synonymous with truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 01-30-2009 3:11 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 01-30-2009 8:58 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 01-30-2009 11:23 AM Cedre has replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 3 of 48 (496714)
01-30-2009 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminModulous
01-30-2009 3:11 AM


Re: Thankyou
Thankyou administrator for that heartfelt welcome, I certainly will heed your advice and look into those suggested links. The topic of life and how it stemmed is no doubt an issue that I'm particularly keen to delve into and hopefully your forums will provide me with the necessary platforms to do just that.I'm looking forward to be spoiled with tantalizing debates and thought-provoking discusions in your forums, hopefully when all's said and done I won't suffer disappointment.

Accepted knowledge is by no means synonymous with truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminModulous, posted 01-30-2009 3:11 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 7 of 48 (497263)
02-03-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Blue Jay
01-30-2009 11:23 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Bluejay and Mr Jack
I appreciate Bluejay that you have shown an interest in my very first idea posted on this side. That said, I have scanned and weighed your assessment including Mr Jack's of 'From protobionts to living cells', and I will accept the correction that Mr Jack and yourself have been kind enough to point out to me. However as you and your colleague Mr Jack may already be aware evolution, as a process can only take affect if it has something on which to have an affect on, that being so the theory hasn't yet made a clean escape from the daunting question of how the first cell came about from abiotic material. Moreover as Mr Jack apparently a scientist himself have stated also apparantly speaking for most of his scientist colleagues, the theory lacks sufficient evidence, in his own words he writes "The only question is how (abiogenesis happened)?
And we don't know. In fact, we're unlikely to ever know; there just isn't sufficient preserved evidence. The best we can hope for is a series of hypothesises that are coherent and plausible and supported by solid lab science and theory."
It turns out that the best Mr Jack and his colleagues can do and have been doing since 1882 is twiddle with a series of hypothesises. The question that must be asked after such a long period of time has passed is, have scientist ever regarded the likelihood that evolution as a theory may not be as probable as it is presumed by the larger science community? Have they (scientist) ever been plagued by the thought that they might perhaps be wasting expensive time and money trying hard to substantiate and sustain an untrue theory? They wouldn't dare ask such questions because the only alternative that remains afterwards for the cause of life on earth is God.
Mr Jack I fail to understand that in the face of such meager evidence to backup the notion of life emerging devoid of other living matter in vicinty from non-living matter how can you still make the claim;
"It (abiogenesis) certainly happened, there is no doubt about that, we know for certain that there was no life on Earth 4.6 billion years ago, and there was by 3.5 billion years ago (and probably by 4 billion)."
I must wonder is the scientific community afraid to admit the wrongness of this (abiogenesis) hypothesis, because the only other alternative is creation, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their faith in a higher being. I don't know its just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 01-30-2009 11:23 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 7:34 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 02-03-2009 9:29 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2009 10:41 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 02-03-2009 12:50 PM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 9 of 48 (497268)
02-03-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Huntard
02-03-2009 7:34 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Huntard
Dear Huntard more than mere words will do to take me in, I want evidence laid out on the table before me to inspect for myself - hardcore evidence. And natural selection does not qualify as an evidence neither does cell mutation as neither process has been witnessed in the lab or in the wild to add new information to an indiviuals genome or to a population's gene pool. If I'm mistaken then present me with evidences to the contrary. Natural selection cannot accommodate too large changes to an indivual or to a population, though it can result in great variety but such changes are confined to a species, it has never been observed to transform an indivual into something else so that it can no longer be called its former self. We know of dog varieties or even cat varieties but we have never known of a dog that for example became a cat and vice versa.
Mutations are harmful,fullstop. Though some who are desperate will say that Most are harmful living room for a few useful ones. How can anything random and sudden be beneficial especially when it comes to life-forms, everything in the body is ordered and systematic, the body is composed of millions of cells one could dub as micro-factories, that work together in an neat manner to produce useful results. A mutant cell is out of control and wayward it violates regulation and disturbs normal body function and growth. Other than this what other evidences have been used to back the theory of evolution? close to nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 7:34 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Annafan, posted 02-03-2009 8:22 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2009 9:10 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 16 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 12:18 PM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 13 of 48 (497283)
02-03-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Wounded King
02-03-2009 9:10 AM


Re: From protobionts to living cells - a response to Huntard
Dear Wounded king I will try not to add salt to your injuries but sadly the arguments you gave in your response to my last post is in direct contradiction to what ectually happens i nature, most of what you gave as an argument has failed at close inspection. This thread is for origins but your ignorance in the area of mutations prompts me to say a few words about it. There is abundant evidence that various kinds of radiations, errors in DNA replication, and certain chemicals can indeed produce mutations, and mutations in reproductive cells can be passed on to future generations. Mutations have profound effects on our lives. And, according to the neo-Darwinian evolutionists, mutations are the raw material for evolution, am I right or wrong. But the question remains: do they produce evolutionary changes? Do they really produce new traits? Do they really help to explain that postulated change from molecules to man?
I really do not want to give the answer in this thread but I will refer to this page, make an effort to visit it. "http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ea/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp"
We will talk again later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2009 9:10 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2009 9:56 AM Cedre has replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 18 of 48 (497388)
02-04-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wounded King
02-03-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Mutations
As beguiling as your offer sounds dear Wounded King, for the time being I"ll have to pass it up (not chicken out), instead I think that I'll linger a while longer on the subject of origins. However, I couldn't help notice that my refering you to a page has been an altogether otiose undertaking. I wonder how much evidence it will take to convince you people. Concerning the page, either you didn't analyse the sound evidence that is provided in it that clearly show the infeasibility of mutations to bring forth useful adaptations, or it may well be you've been blinded from seeing the evidence which is right before you by the dogmatic views of darwin followers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2009 9:56 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 1:42 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 3:29 AM Cedre has replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 21 of 48 (497399)
02-04-2009 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2009 3:29 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
Your statement is frightfuly bold, Dr adequate. I will not speak for others but from experience I can avow that the different men and women who write on AiG are real qualified scientists, some of them are on a par with the best of what evolution can offer, and post regualarly in scientific journals and/or serial publications. What is more, though, is that, these scientists are also bible-believing christians, and to me it seems silly that they they would publish information with the intend to cozen unwitting readers. What good would it do for them but send them straight to the pits of hell. The bible guarantee us that all liars will have their part in hell, and in any event honesty is one of Christianity's precepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 3:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 3:58 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:31 AM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 23 of 48 (497402)
02-04-2009 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Huntard
02-04-2009 3:58 AM


Re: responding to Dr adequate
No Dr adequate the point is you need to take one of their articles and debunk it word for word, if you can do that in a winning manner, I might display some respect for evolution and I might even make the cross over into your camp, if evolution is a reality, hey man! then anything is possible in this world. But I specially challenge you to take on one of their many articles dealing with mutations. If you're so positive that it's all a load of hotair then you won't have any difficulty debunking it. Good Luck!
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 3:58 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:18 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 26 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 4:55 AM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 25 of 48 (497408)
02-04-2009 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
02-04-2009 4:18 AM


Re: Hunted
The results of the exercise to debunk an AiG article on mutations wasn't intended to be disclosed on this thread, it is a personal task aimed at Dr Adequate. However in the meantime I have a mounting heap of unrequited questions regarding the origins of life. And to set the record straoght, I am not the one who strays from the theme, it is everyone else in trying to escape discussing origins they instead fill the air with noise about mutations and other irrelevant topics, since I introduced this thread I have not had one person say anything meaningful in defense of the arguments I gave for why abiogenesis is twaddle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:18 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:55 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 28 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:02 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 02-04-2009 5:48 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 02-04-2009 6:40 AM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 29 of 48 (497416)
02-04-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Huntard
02-04-2009 4:55 AM


Re: Hunted
Well it's suprising for you to ask that question, my man, where've you been all this time, don't you get outsite of the house every so often to marvel at the beauty and sheer genius of nature. The hand of God hasn't been more evident in nature since the birth of science that has started unravelling the cell to unearth such involutions as the citric acid cycle, glycolysis and the various transport mechanism involved in generating useful energy, the slitting of the DNA helix ending up in two daughter DNA, transcription, translation I'm out of breath at this point but no doubt the list doesn't take my loss of breath in account it continues on smoothly. The hand of God is evident and logic supports that notion, science may not be able to validate his existence beyond a shadow of or doubt but it sure does a brilliant task at revealing his handywork in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 4:55 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-04-2009 5:23 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 31 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 5:24 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:35 AM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 33 of 48 (497421)
02-04-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Annafan
02-04-2009 5:02 AM


Re: Hunted
Perhaps Mr Hunter you do not realise just how huge a bone of contention not being able to explain how life originated for evolution is, if truth be told, it is a huge prickly thorn embedded out of reach in the side of evolution and no amount of abiobabble surgery will get rid of it. Let me explain why, Number one life as said by evolutionist has come about from non living mattr via four physical and chemical process aided by the(blind)force of natural selection and transforming abilities of mutations. First the emergence of dead organic matter like say nucleotides. Second the joining of the above-named monomers and others to form nucleic acids and other molecules such as amino acids. Third the arranging of these molecules into "protobionts" membrane-bound droplets with internal conditions differen't from that of their surroundings (So what my house has got conditions different from that of my yard, we keep it warm in winter and cool in summer but it doesn't mean its going to come to life someday or spontaneaosly give rise to a living cell). Then finally origin of self-replicating molecules that ushered in the age of replication. As easy as that. Hardly this sounds good on paper but what is its relevance to real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:02 AM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:38 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 02-04-2009 5:41 AM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 39 of 48 (497429)
02-04-2009 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2009 5:38 AM


Re: Dr Adequate
Evolution isn't riding on such a clean and admirable slate as you think Dr. inadequately informed. You might want to look into Jean-Baptiste de Larmarck's work sometime, fascinating stuff, all disproved by the modern understanding of genetics, and who by the by was the father of genetics non other than a little christian monk called Gregor Mendel. Pray also look into the fruadulent models of embroyolgy that this guy Ernst Heinrich Haeckel invented to decieve. Are you familiar with Hitler, yes the dictator he commonly declared that Jews were completely ape, many of his ideas were inspred by the theory of devilution oh sorry i meant to say evolution. Enough of that do you know Johannes Kepler, I think you're very familiar with this one Galileo Galilei , or Blaise Pascal,Robert Boyle, O this want is a masterpiece the cream of the crop Sir. Isaac Newton, what about Carolus Linnaeus the father of modern taxonomy, Louis Pasteur, and Lord Kelvin, all atleast believers in a God some really passionate about God, and you know what the list is endless but I think you've got my point so I'll stop here.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 5:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-04-2009 6:17 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 6:18 AM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 42 of 48 (497436)
02-04-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Annafan
02-04-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Annafan
You have to face up to the facts if there is no known or at least plausible mechanism that could account for a spontaneous generation, we are left to conclude that a higher-intellegence is responsible for life. And that being so we have to come to terms with the fact that he may well be the God of the bible, and the world has been created as it is postulated in the Genesis account. Everything was created in its present form but natural selection that kind that is observed gave rise to the different varieties that exist today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 5:56 AM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2009 6:29 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 02-04-2009 6:35 AM Cedre has replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 47 of 48 (497442)
02-04-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Jack
02-04-2009 6:35 AM


Re: Mr Jack
Mr Jack a believe in God never hampered the scientists I mentioned earlier from conducting real, crude scientific work, as human beings it is engrained into our nature the impulse to inquire. A believe in God as you're trying to say will not only resort to the answer of God did it, but as long as intelligence and curious people exist scientific inquiry will not come to a sudden screeching halt. What harm would it do if we would understand the world from the bible's point of view, God made we want to understand it so what's stopping us, just as long as we acknowledge the creator not only as being the first cuase but also as a key factor of our lives today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 02-04-2009 6:35 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024