Why not teach problems with ToE in school?

"Refer to Message 7 (Thread Problems with the first life in Forum Origin of Life) for a grossly simplified explanation of the current abiogenesis theory."You didn't expain in that message that besides creating only 2% organic molecules, he also created 85% tar and 13% carboxlic acid. This would have killed any life that could have formed, although this experiment really does not prove at all that life was formed like that. If we do some how create life in a laboratory, although I really doubt that that will happen, it would only prove that intelligent life could create life."Here is a suggestion, go on to college and take at least 2 bio classes before you make such a judgement. Just remember to get higher grades than C's."Evolution explains the origins of everything just like any religion such as christianity, or hinduism.

"blatant lies borrowed from creationists."And some of these lies are????

That's cute, but it's not true.If we use natural processes to make life, using steps that could have reasonably happened in the absence of intelligent design, then regardless of the presence of intelligent brains in the lab, we'll have proved that natural processes suffice for the generation of life.Honestly why on Earth would you think that the presence of intelligence and naturally-occuring processes are mutually exclusive? Under your model, nothing happens naturally, I guess. Again, you're cute, but that's just plain false. Evolution is not an origins myth. It's a narrative of the development of life on Earth, post-biogenesis. It has nothing to do with origins.

You are not going to be convincing to anyone nor are you going to learn anything if you keep putting forth such pronouncements. You have absolutely no idea if "most" mutations do just anything at all.If pressed you can't define what percentage of mutations do anything of any particular kind.Is Down's syndrome one of the "most" mutations you are talking about or not? If you can get that right I'd like you to list the genetic changes behind a dozen human defects showing that "most" of them are "deletions".

Human Hemoglobin C. Well, they do, you're correct. Neutral mutations notwithstanding (which are the majority), most mutations are not advantageous for survival.But imagine for a moment that you had a natural process that could weed out or make selections from the gene pool, weeding out detrimental mutations and leaving only the neutral or beneficial ones.What might you have left over, then? Only the beneficial or neutral mutations.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-20-2004 01:03 AM

"If we use natural processes to make life"We can argue about that after we make life...."Again, you're cute, but that's just plain false. Evolution is not an origins myth. It's a narrative of the development of life on Earth, post-biogenesis. It has nothing to do with origins."really? because a lot of people on this forum argue that our origins are from some chemical reaction.

That certainly seems the most reasonable. But that has nothing to do with Evolution.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are still confusing abiogenesis with evoultion. Abiogenesis, not evolution tries to explain the origin of life..

Well, I agree. And you might want to be careful with that argument in the future - after all, if we're never able to do it in the lab doesn't that prove, by your reasoning, that intelligence can't ever be enough to make life? Right, but that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a theory of biology. It's certainly a related question, but the origin of life is a problem for chemistry, not biology.

I don't know much about this Human Hemoglobin C. explain it to me.What are some examples of mutations that add entirely new information?

It's a mutation to (as the name suggests) human hemoglobin that confers exceptional resistance to the malaria parasite. To learn more, I suggest that you go to http://www.pubmed.org (a searchable database of biology/medical journal abstracts) and search for "human hemoglobin C." Any frame shift mutation resulting from the addition of one (or more) extra base pairs. That would constitute the addition of at least one base pair's-worth of information.

Ok, since I see that you have trouble grasping the purposes behind experiments, let me make it simple. The Miller experiment did not "prove" anything about abiogenesis. It confirmed that organic molecules could have arisen through natural processes in primordial conditions.Another thing, have you ever heard of the domain archaea? You really don't have a clue what scientific experiments of this nature is all about, do you?Scientific experiments in laboratories are performed using natural processes to explore the possible results of naturally occuring phenomina. If you don't get that, then I give up. Somehow, we haven't been able to make you understand that abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different theories. They are 2 different fields of science. It's either all of us here have really bad writing skills or you have a really poor reading comprehension skill. However, considering the A that I got for my 16 page paper last semester, I doubt it was me that did not make the point clear enough.Another thing you have to understand is that the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis are objective in nature. Christian and Hindu creation myths are subjective in nature.

---

The Laminator

​

for instance, any argument perpetrated by kent hovind.

what does he say that are lies?

abiogenesis and evolution are often put together