Summations Only

The problem is that scientist never demonstrated that the origin of life even required a single protein, much less 200 of them, or even 2. For all we know, the origin of life required RNA and lipids only with no protein needed at any point.If short proteins were involved, we also don't know what combination of proteins or sequences were required, so even then Hoyle's calculations for a specific set of proteins is based on nothing.To use an analogy, pretend that I have a huge bag full of little tiny tiles. You reach in and pull out a tile with the number 42 on it. From just that information, what are the odds that you would have pulled out a tile with the number 42 on it? Of course, there is no way of calculating this probability. For all we know, every single tile has a 42 on it, or perhaps 1,000 of them do. We just don't know. The same applies to the origin of life. No one can calculate the odds of life originating through abiogenesis because no one knows all of the possible combinations of molecules that can lead to life.

If I explain to a child that Santa Claus does not exist because it is simply impossible for Santa to visit all of those houses as it is described in myth could the child then turn around and say that I have to believe in Santa Claus to make such a determination?You are like the child. You think that we must first believe in God in order to point to the inconsistencies between reality and theology. This obviously isn't so. It isn't, and never has been.You might as well argue that water doesn't form from hydrogen and water because the oxygen and hydrogen ultimately require the Big Bang as a prerequisite which I am guessing is something that you don't accept. So at least be consistent and argue that water does not exist since you reject their prerequisite as well.Let me stress this again. Do you really think that we can not describe the changes that chemicals go through without first describing the ultimate origin of those chemicals? Think about this. Do you really think that we can not describe the change in the physical characteristics of a substance when it goes from being hydrogen and oxygen gas to dihydrogen oxide in the form of a liquid until we first produce a well evidenced theory on the ultimate origin of the universe? Do you really think this? If not, then why would we need to explain the ultimate origin of life in order to understand how life changed once it was here? Can you even understand how stupid it is to reject the theory of biodiversity because there is no solid theory on the origin of life? Why should we care what you believe? When you can demonstrate these odds then it will hold some weight. Until then, it is nothing more than incredulity. No, we don't. There are tons of examples of negative entropy, even outside of biology. The water cycle on Earth is a perfect example. This system is constantly moving from disorder to order. How else do you think we can get separate salty and fresh water? We criticize each equally for believing in gods that don't exist. What we stress is that evil people will do evil things with their religious beliefs often being irrelevant. This applies to christians as well as muslims. We don't blame christianity for child molestaion as it relates to priests. We blame people for commiting the crime and other people for covering it up. This is pretty sad. When creationists get the laws of thermodynamics wrong we explain to them why it is wrong. Don't blame us for the mistakes that creationists make.

But you do believe in something, and it is those beliefs that we are addressing. We are pointing out that reality does not conform to your beliefs. That is the whole point. We do not "blame God" for the bad things that happen. Instead, we point out that bad things are inconsistent with a loving omnipotent god. Then we can not say that oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water, according to your argument. The BB is a prerequisite for these atoms as described by science as much as abiogenesis is a prerequisite for life. If you reject the theory that explains how life changes because you reject the origin of that life then you must also reject how atoms change because you reject the scientific explanation for how those atoms came about.

You ducked the question once again. For someone who claims to be kicking butt you sure are running away from questions. Wonder why that is? Here is subbie's question once again:"Now please explain, in detail, how the Theory of Evolution will change if it turns out that the current thoughts about the primordial soup are wrong, and life was seeded by an alien civilization billions of years ago, or arrived in a panspermic process on the backs of asteroids."Can you please answer the question this time?

And you ducked the question once again. Your ass, sir, has been officially handed to you. You claim that abiogenesis is a pre-requisite for evolution, and yet you can not explain how the theory of evolution would change one iota when that pre-requisite is taken away. That means that abiogenesis is not a pre-requisite for evolution, contrary to your claims.

Buzsaw seems to be arguing that in order for evolution to be true that life had to come about through abiogenesis. Therefore, by demonstrating the "impossibility" of abiogenesis one can falsify evolution. Buzsaw also seems to be arguing that the lack of any solid theory within abiogenesis also means that evolution is lacking support as well.

The question wasn't asking what percentage of scientists have accepted the idea that life was started by aliens. The question was how the theory of evolution would need to be changed if the first replicator, from which all life then evolved, was planted here by aliens. You still have not answered this question.I will rephrase it in terms that you may better understand. If God created a simple RNA replicator (i.e. spoke it into existence) from which all life that we see now evolved, how would this change the theory of evolution?"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. "--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Where did you show us a definition of evolution where it stated that abiogenesis was required for the theory to be true?

Oh how your tune has changed. Let's take a little trip down memory lane, shall we?In post 142 you stated:"I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution."Notice how you used premoridal [sic] soup as the prerequisite instead of biogenesis. You were obviously saying that without abiogenesis you could not have evolution. Are you still claiming this, or have you changed your tune?You stated this again in message 197:"For advocates of the primordial soup, both that and abiogenesis are prerequisite to evolution. No?"Again in message 215:"pre=before requisite derived from required, i.e. both pre required, i.e. came before, i.e. preceded, i.e. no soup, no abiogenesis, ( LIFE) no evolution for those who ascribe to primordial soup."So I will ask again. If God created a simple RNA replicator and all life evolved from there, how would this change the modern theory of evolution? Could evolution still occur even though abiogenesis did not occur? Have you changed your mind on this issue?

Let's say that they designed life from non-living chemicals using technology similar to what we use to create DNA oligomers. Let's say that they created a simple RNA replicator from non-living chemicals and inserted the replicator into a lipid envelope also derived from non-living chemicals. According to Buzsaw, if this happened then evolution could not occur because evolution requires abiogenesis.

It would not have been life from the primoridial soup (aka cosmic slime) which Buzsaw has stated many times is a pre-requisite for evolution."I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution."--Buzsaw, message 142 of this thread

"Biogenesis is the belief that living things come only from other living things, . . . "
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia"Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life would arise from inorganic matter through natural processes."
Abiogenesis - WikipediaThey sound like opposing ideas to me. To reiterate once more, Buzsaw's position (at least in one post) is that if life did not originate through abiogenesis (i.e. primordial soup) then no evolution. What we are arguing is that evolution could occur even if life did not originate through abiogenesis (i.e. through natural means from inorganic matter) contrary to Buzsaw's claims.

Subbie asked Buzsaw the original question and I have modified it somewhat. Perhaps you can try to answer it.Let's say that God created a simple RNA replicator 4 billion years ago on Earth, and from that first life all life then evolved through the mechanisms of evolution. How would we need to change the current theory of evolution (the theory on how life changes over time) in order to explain how life evolved from that RNA replicator? How does a supernatural origin of life change the theory of evolution? If you can not describe how the theory of evolution would change then your claim that one requires the other is simply not true.Or better yet, we can turn the tables. Creationists like to claim that we can not test for abiogenesis, much less gather evidence for it. Both your argument and Buzsaw's argument give us a perfect way to test abiogenesis. All we need to do is seek evidence for evolution. Both of you have said that in order for evolution to occur that abiogenesis had to occur. Therefore, evidence demonstrating that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other apes is evidence of abiogenesis. You want evidence of abiogenesis? Look no further than orthologous ERV's shared by humans and other apes and all of the other ironclad genetic evidence which demonstrates that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes. The Big Bang is the scientific pre-requisite for the existence of all matter in the universe. Do you have to accept the BB in order to explain how oxygen and hydrogen combine to make water? Afterall, no Big Bang, no oxygen or hydrogen.

Subbie and I asked a very, very simple question. If the first organism was magically poofed into existence and life evolved from there how would the theory of evolution need to be changed? That question was ducked time after time after time. Not a single creationist even attempted to show how the theory would need to be changed if life did not come about through abiogenesis. Not one. And yet they have the audacity to claim that the theory of evolution depends on abiogenesis.Chuck even goes as far as saying that since he doesn't accept the theory of evolution so he is exempt from even answering the question. How pathetic is that? He can't be asked to even consider the real theory of evolution, but then immediatly goes right back to the lies that creationists continue to spread about the theory (e.g. that it relies on abiogenesis). Guess what Chuck, you can determine how life changed over time without knowing where that first life came from just like you can determine if a gun fired a bullet using ballistics without knowing the ultimate origin of the lead in the bullet.This is just one example of many. These questions exemplify the dishonesty that creationists employ. The only way that they can engage challenges to their beliefs is to contort other people's claims until they are unrecognizable. They can not engage in anything resembling an honest debate. I am starting to think that they are incapable of being honest with themselves.