|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution has been Disproven | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Yes, please check for me. And also check what he said about the early atmosphere composition. Something about either oxidation or lack of ozone. And that amino acids might be upset about either scenario. I'll await your reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Well, I was going to say twenty years, but I thought I`d better err a tad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Crash writes:
Yeah, who would want to believe something like that? ...I mean, I find it patently ridiculous that grown-up adults come here and relate fairy tales developed by first-century goatherds as though they were actually true... And:
Crash writes:
Yes, you've learned well, Luke. Many of the truths to which we cling, depend greatly on our own point of view (we've gone over this before in a different post; did you think of something else you might want to add, or do just want to go over it again?) In fact it's much more likely that what you or I consider "ridiculous" is a function of cultural upbringing, not a function of what is true in the universe.If you reject a particular possibility, then anything that supports that possibility is ridiculous. If you have decided that God doesn't exist (for whatever reason), then even his appearance in your living room would not be sufficient evidence that he is God (God walked with Cain, but yet he STILL chose to murder his brother). Crash, we went over this in detail in another thread; I thought we reached a point where we both said what we had to say (including your personal attacks against me) and that was that. Did you want to switch over to that thread to continue our discussion or am I mis-reading you? (again, I thought we were finished with that).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
LOL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Ned writes:
Not that I recall. Unless someone took something I said and made an acronym out of it. There's a ref to it in post 104 of a different thread; is that what you're talking about? I've never used term.
Someone has been asked for their definition today IIRC. Was that you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Not according to Quetzal. He acts like creationists are stupid for not understanding his fantasy fiction ideas of how life could have begun. Of COURSE they haven't a clue. So who are these guys who think they have it figured out? Of course, no one SAYS verbatim that they have it figured out; but they act like it. Remember THE CORE: "....just say it together with me; I DON'T KNOW....".
Want to have a shot at Gen 1:21? 'And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life-----' How did He assemble the amino acids, etc.? What`s that, YOU DON`T KNOW?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
IIRC is if I recall correctly.
It was the definition of genetic information that I'm talking about. We've had several attempts at getting anyone to define their terms as far as information, complexity etc goes. However, no one does. That includes Dempski and the like. We need a clear, precise definition; what is often called an operational definition. You could google that and see what you glean from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Back to my repeatedly ignored question (or line of questioning):
HOW did the RNA (rybozyme) develop this amazing capability? Simple question. Why ignore it?
Pink writes:
Um, are you disagreeing with me or with Quetzal? It was Quetzal who pointed out the term "machine", not me. I just referred to it:
No higher information, no complex cellular machinery.Quetzal writes:
I doubt Quetzal would want me as his spokesman, so maybe you should explain the machine thing to him. Or when does "machine" not mean "machine"? Please remember that Quetzal was quoting from Zhang B, Cech TR, 1997 "Peptide bond formation by in vitro selected ribozymes", Nature 390:96-100, so Quetzal might not want to vouch for that information.
...even the modern ribosome has been considered to be fundamentally an RNA machine...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
That's correct. I don't know. And don't claim to. I "believe" God did it. Science just "believes" we can find a way to explain it WITHOUT GOD. Maybe we'll ask again in about 100 years or so.
I also believe intel makes CPUs. I don't know how, but I believe they do it. My buddy next door thinks he can prove that the chips made themselves over millions of years and intel just happened to find a bunch of them floating down the creek after a small earthquake shook things up a bit, and now they're taking all the credit. He's still conducting extensive research, though. He's expecting me to ask him about it again in 100 years or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
HOW did the RNA (rybozyme) develop this amazing capability? Simple question. Why ignore it? Sorry, I thought I answered your question. I'll try again: The RNA does not "develop" catalytic activity, it simply has catalytic activity. I'm trying to think of a decent analogy - your question is kind of like: "HOW did the NaCl (table salt) develop this amazing capability to dissolve in water?" Salt didn't need to "develop and amazing capability" to dissolve in water, it just does, that is, its chemical properties cause it to do so. Likewise, the chemical properties of a short, self-replicating RNA strand cause it to make copies of itself. It doesn't develop the capability, it has the property. Does that make more sense?
Um, are you disagreeing with me or with Quetzal? It was Quetzal who pointed out the term "machine", not me. I'm not on anyone's side, I am simply trying to clear up misconceptions about RNA catalysts and RNA-based abiogenesis theory. (And you should ask Quetzal about his choice of terminology, not me.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
schrafinator responds to sfs:
quote:quote: Close, but it's even more insidious. People seem to remember Matthew 7:1 but can't seem to remember that it's immediately followed by 7:2: Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. It says we shouldn't judge others lest you receive the same judgement. Too many people seem to think that the admonition is connected to the "he who is without sin" concept and thus, so long as they think they haven't committed the sin, it is perfectly fine to condemn everybody else. But that isn't what it says. It is saying that if you judge someone else, you will receive the exact same judgement regardless. Stone someone and you will be stoned, yourself. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Two warnings in less than 24 hours means that members aren't taking the Forum Guidelines warnings seriously. When thread participants in general fail to follow moderator requests the thread is often temporarily closed. When individual members fail to follow moderator requests, they often temporarily lose their posting privileges.
Without naming anyone specifically, here are some brief descriptions of violations of the Forum Guidelines that must be brought to rein:
This is the last warning. If I have to post in this thread again it will be to announce an action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Juhrahnimo writes: I think the topics that are being confused are "Evolution" and "Evolution". The two terms are being used interchangeably by your camp. One means (contextually) micro/macro evolution, and the other means (contextually) chemical evolution. Your camp usually is quick to point out that MME has nothing to do with the origin of life (without mentioning CE), but then that's where the discussion always ends up somehow. I can believe that it isn't always clear from context whether someone is speaking of biological or chemical evolution, but I don't think this reflects any confusion among evolutionists. There is of course inherent ambiguity at the boundary between non-life and life, but we're not focusing on that issue in this thread, so I don't think confusion between biological and chemical evolution is a particularly significant concern. When discussing abiogenesis, the unmodified use of the term "evolution" means chemical evolution. When discussing the process of changing lifeforms "evolution" means biological evolution.
Maybe evolution DOES have something to do with evolution after all, despite evolutionists shying away from the orgin of life (CE). There's a consistent misconstrual on the part of Creationists that evolutionists' emphasis on drawing a clear distinction between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution means that we're reluctant to discuss the issue. Evolutionists will not back away from this distinction because it is real. We can study evolution first hand in the here and now, we can review the history of life as recorded in the fossil record, and so we understand a great deal about evolution. But abiogenesis took place once billions of years ago. We can't study it directly. To evolutionists, abiogenesis is distinct from biological evolution for some very apparent reasons, most prominently that we know so very little about it. Much is informed speculation, and we can't know what principles of evolution apply to abiogenesis. Does population genetics, an area of study within biological evolution, apply to chemical evolution? Is there such a thing as speciation in chemical evolution? Possibly, and possibly not. We simply don't know, and this just by itself makes abiogenesis a separate field of study. Of course, most evolutionists accept both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. And of course, both evolution and abiogenesis are fields of study within biology. I think better progress might be made if you allow discussion to proceed by getting past the sticking point that evolutionists are trying to pull a fast one on you by keeping abiogenesis and the theory of evolution separate. Once we get into it you might better understand that this isn't the case.
Not according to Quetzal. He acts like creationists are stupid for not understanding his fantasy fiction ideas of how life could have begun. Of COURSE they haven't a clue. So who are these guys who think they have it figured out? Of course, no one SAYS verbatim that they have it figured out; but they act like it. Remember THE CORE: "....just say it together with me; I DON'T KNOW....". I can see where you might perceive some arrogance, but I have to agree with the other evolutionists here that you appear to be making the mistake of assuming that not knowing everything is equivalent to not knowing anything. Evolutionists are trying to describe for you that there are some things that we *do* actually know. You are absolutely correct to point out that experiments in the lab that attempt to replicate events on the early earth are not proof that that's the way things happened, but evolutionists are not offering this evidence in this way. These experiments represent possible avenues that early life might have taken, and as such are only being offered as evidence against your claim that abiogenesis is impossible.
Percy writes:
Yes, your humor (like your Woody Allen picture) never ceases to amaze me. ..By the way, scientists are not postulating anything circular such as that amino acids came from RNA and RNA came from amino acids. The issue they're studying is which came first. It is understood that if some kind of primitive RNA came first that it would have had to have been composed of amino acids that can arise naturally without RNA... I was responding to your impression that there is circularity in the scenario proposed for the origin of RNA. Since you think I was joking you must not have understood what I was saying. As others have already mentioned, some amino acids arise naturally. A primitive RNA composed of these amino acids could evolve (note the implicit modifier "chemically") to produce amino acids that don't normally form naturally by simpler means. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
To evolutionists, abiogenesis is distinct from biological evolution for some very apparent reasons, most prominently that we know so very little about it. I disagree with this. The main reason that they are separate is the biological evolution deals with living things that we know possess the capabilities necessary for evolution to take place: imprefect replication in a selective environment. Since evolutionary like processess have been proven to be very powerful there are suggestions that chemicals (or at least things we would otherwise have a hard time as recognizing as alive might allow for conditions where evolutionary mechanisms might be allowed. However, since it is chemistry (not biology) that we are discussing paths which get to "real" life without "evolution" happening are also considered. If the research is involved with non-living things that don't undergo darwinian evolution it would not be biology. If it is not biology it is not in the area of biological evolution. They are simply separate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Ya know, it's been my experience that when someone's cornered, they resort to insult. Your stridency betrays your lack of a coherent argument rebutting what I posted. Especially since the posts quite thoroughly rebut your initial question concerning homochirality. Moving the goalposts doesn't help - I can keep pushing you back into a corner until you exit from the sidereal universe somewhere below the Higgs boson.
However, in the interests of keeping this "discussion" moving, I'll ignore your insulting tone. After all, there might be someone reading this that could learn something. I have a feeling either you don't understand the articles I posted, or you're deliberately being obtuse. Let me know which is which - I'd be happy to go into detail on the articles if there's something you don't understand. For example, when you say:
YOU guys moved the goalposts by admitting that L-amino acids can't form by themselves as life would require. You are apparently not realizing that the Ghadiri article answers this question. Here, I'll quote the relevant portions for you again: quote: Note the emphasized bits:a) the RNA is naturally self-catalyzing b) it makes use of simple molecules to build itself c) it has a dynamic (built-in) error correction system that is simply an expression of its chemical composition Your next bit (right after implying I was a liar, which was uncalled for) states a brand spanking new question (moving the goalposts again):
So "where did the RNA come from, along with it's amazing capabilities?" Since you hadn't asked this question before, I find it difficult to understand why you are complaining I hadn't answered it. OTOH, if you had read the remaining articles I gave you, you would have noted that they provide some clues as to the answer. For example:
quote: This is called autocatalysis. IOW, the RNA (only 196 nucleotides long, btw), is building itself, simply through its own chemical composition and reactions with surrounding molecules. Interesting, no? Of course the second article was even more interesting: a simple binary molecule capable of catalyzing the formation of RNA. The relevant portion:
quote: Your just going over the same thing. I'M not moving goal posts; YOU're coming up with sillier ideas to cover silly ones. Words like "premise" are dead giveaways that your heros have absolutely NO CLUE as to what really happened; they just HAVE to come up with at lease SOMETHING that sounds scientific so they don't lose their government research grants Umm, you must have missed the sentence immediately following the part you quoted from the article. Here, let me refresh your memory:
quote: IOW, in the very next sentence, they state unequivocally that they discovered evidence to support the "premise" you singled out for criticism. You really need to read the articles I post if you're going to criticize them.
Totally ludicrous, don't you see? I'm starting to think that you're not even READING what you cut and paste. You may even just be a sensationalist who enjoys complex ideas, even if there's no other reason for it. But simply posting the above quote (cut and paste) in hopes of supporting your argument shows that YOU DIDN'T READ it. I didn't read it? Lol.
The mechanisms that you describe requires INFORMATION and CODING (see your own post). So WHERE did this "information" COME FROM, and HOW was it ENCODED? And how was the CODE determined? Bare assertion. What is "information" in this context? For that matter, what is "coding" except for a convenient analogy? If you've read the articles posted thus far, you'll note that all of them point to the fact that the sequences are determined by the simple chemical rules that govern how organic compounds form. The fact that some of these compounds are autocatalytic is a feature of their chemical properties. It's got nothing to do with "coding" except by way of analogy. IOW, the "code" wasn't "determined" in any way. It's just the way the molecules formed through basic chemical reaction. Nice try. Beyond that, if you want to talk about "information" and all that, please find an appropriate thread.
Again, HOW did the RNA "machine" develop its amazing capabilities? The chocolate ice-cream from elephant tusks sounds much more plausible than what you're trying to tell me. Actually, maybe not. The elephant tusk thing isn't weird enough to qualify for a government grant. I might have to re-think that theory a little. I just told you - its a basic property of the way certain molecules interact. Maybe you should take a course in organic chemistry. Amazing stuff, carbon. However, for those interested, there is a great deal of experimental work being conducted. One I happen to like quite a bit is: Landweber LF, Pokrovskaya ID, 1999, Emergence of a dual-catalytic RNA with metal-specific cleavage and ligase activities: The spandrels of RNA evolution., PNAS 96:173-178quote: I like this article because it specifies that RNA catalysts can form from simpler precursors - answering J's question concerning how RNA arose in the first place. But wait, there's more. J wants to know how this molecule developed its capabilities. Some very interesting work is being done on precisely this issue. Here's an article that specifies how one of the key reactions arose: Lee N, Bessho Y, Wei K, Szostak JW, Suga H, 2000, "Ribozyme-catalyzed tRNA aminoacylation", Nat Struct Biol 7:28-33 quote: Keep'em coming; I've got one of these for every one of yours. Or, on second thought, nevermind. You're already proven my point. Your point being you don't have the first clue what you're talking about?
quote: I thought you knew that, since you seemed so knowledgable about this subject. But simply because you brought that question up, I can now only presume that you have no idea what you're talking about in this area. Sorry I wasted my time with you. Please learn your subject matter next time before you start cutting and pasting. You brought it up. You tell me what the "problem" is. Learn the subject matter? Lol. Talk about weak arguments. You post the issue or question, I'll let you know when it covers something I "have no idea" about. As for wasting time, I would agree that someone's wasting their time. It's not immediately obvious that person is you, however. edited to fix hanging sentence This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-10-2005 10:51 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024