Evolution has been Disproven

LOLthe reaction adds one (1) 'molecule' of water^(*) in the process of making the dipeptide ...H₂NCHRCOOH +H₂NCHR’COOH ’ H₂NCHRCONHCHR’COOH + H₂OIn a solution that is mostly water ... and this amount of water is suddenly a problem for the next reaction?Safarti is just trying to minimize the fact that a dipeptide was formed by normal chemical processes that could have occured on an early earth.I'd say more but your new here. Welcome to the fray.^(*) while we normally talk about water being H₂O molecules, they actually form weakly linked supermolecules aligned in chains due to a slight polarization of the molecule from the asymmetrical shape. Adding another molecule to such a chain does not alter its behavior.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

i find this subject matter interesting. due to many aspects of human nature, people develop a very narrow idea of the universe. in our lives, we see things that have a beginning, a middle, and an end. in astrophysics, this sort of concept doesnt necessarily apply. i see the question asked many times "so whats the point of human life?" my answer is simply this, who ever said that there HAD to be a point? perhaps things are the way they are, simply because thats the way they are, and thats the way they always have been. obviously this view has conflict with the human ego, but sometimes the truth hurts (as history has shown us). Many things in this universe we're just begining to learn about have recurring nature. in laymans terms, its foolish to look at things as begining, middle, end, versus a point in a loop/cycle. molecular probability and human conciousness have very interesting contributions to this topic, but i feel i've gotten too far off topic already, my apologies. concerning life coming from non-life, life has suprisingly simple ingredients that just require difficult situations to make the change to "life" as you would say. organic molecules consist of things present all over the place, molecules of carbon atoms, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. life does come from non-life, just not spontaneously (saying that it as an exothermic process, i.e. energy is required to form organic molecules etc.)

lets not make such hasty assumptions about chemistry and solubility here. simply being in a negative concentration situation doesnt necessarily mean the molecule is going to dissolve in water. many factors play a role including the nature of the molecules in question, temperature, pH, other molecules present, etc. dehydration synthesis often requires large amounts of energy to form stronger bonds. not every bond is alike, and different types of bonding have different activation energies. hydrogen bonding is particularly strong, and often takes more than just being out of concentration to cause them to break down. youre also misusing the nature of concentrations. concentrations relate more to the movement of molecules than they do the structure of molecules in this situation. things move from a high concentration to a low concentration, this is usually shown with synthetic membranes, but anyways. this is not to say that concentration doesnt drive chemical reactions, but in this particular case, molecular distribution would play more of a role than chemical processes.This message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 11:52 PMThis message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 11:53 PM

He's quoting from AnswersInGenesis, an article by Safarti. I don't think he understands the errors that Safarti makes either.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*13*2005 08:45 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The idea that evolution can be proven wrong because life has not been demonstrated to come from non-living materials is incorrect. The theory of evolution does not concern itself with how the first living organism came about. Evolution is only concerned with what happened to that first organism after it appeared.

where did the first life come from then?This message has been edited by pianoprincess*, 01-25-2006 11:01 PM

it just kinda happened. Complexity of the inorganic kept on increasing till it discovered the trick of self replication with errors then BOOM, life.Where exactly you wish the line that says life started here... is a subject for debate but fairly arbatary in the gradual change from in-organnic to organic...

Hi Piano,While you are waiting for replies here and in other threads, I'd like to invite you to join us in chat, get to know us a little.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

That's an unsolved problem. The problem is usually called "abiogenesis" .The theory of evolution is about how life changed. Problems in explaining the origin of life don't affect whether evolution is correct, because evolution doesn't start until after abiogenesis occurred.

Truthfully, I do not believe that there is a way to understand that now.But they're all right: evolution has nothing to do with the start of life; it only concerns what happens after life begins.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

It's an interesting question, but one we can't answer for a very simple reason. Mars rock aside, we don't know if life (intelligent or otherwise) is unique to Earth.As such, it becomes a little hard to say with any certainty that life on Earth arose by X or couldn't possibly have arrisen by Y.The universe could be absolutely chock full of life, or it could be a vast waste land.Either way, how life got here (whether created by a mystical force, created by a mishap of chemistry or arriving here from elsewhere) is not of great concern to Evolution.If we were to transplant life onto Mars and left it alone for millions of years, we'd expect evolution to continue taking place. Evolution is a process of life, but not the progenitor of it

Those are very good points, I did not know that before. It seems like evolution is sort of based on a "belief" just like evolutionists claim creationism is. Thats interesting.

Hello Heebs, welcome to evc.I suggest you read over the whole thread. You will find that defender started off utterly wrong in his understanding of what evolution is about. Lots of reading and questions is a good place for a newbie to start.Some of the links in my signiture might be helpful. If you ask questions about how things work almost everyone will be glad to answer. (In fact, it is possible that e v e r y o n e will answer ).

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

sooooooooo I'm getting the general feel that evolutionis not supposed to involve abiogenisis. If it doesn't deal with the begening of life, where DID life come from?oh wait i already asked that! lol it been awile since i've been on. *blushes*This message has been edited by pianoprincess*, 02-04-2006 02:00 AM

sooooooooooooo, life came form nothing. thats still abiogenesis.The idea that life just appeared all by itself seems more far fetched that the idea that life just appeared because someone created it...and how did this gradual change take place? what made inorganic want to be organic?