Evolution has been Disproven

You appear to have lost the ability to read, or perhaps you just wished to demonstrate your ability to misquote. It was formerly thought to explain the origin of microorganisms, not life's origins.

I hate being out of contact so long. I always miss the good threads... Okay, fair question. Try this on for size: Bailey, JM 1998 RNA-directed amino acid homochirality FASEB Journal 12:503-507

quote:

---

The phenomenon of L-amino acid homochirality was analyzed on the basis that protein synthesis evolved in an environment in which ribose nucleic acids preceded proteins, so that selection of L-amino acids may have arisen as a consequence of the properties of the RNA molecule. Aminoacylation of RNA is the primary mechanism for selection of amino acids for protein synthesis, and models of this reaction with both D- and L-amino acids have been constructed. It was confirmed, as observed by others, that the aminoacylation of RNA by amino acids in free solution is not predictably stereoselective. However, when the RNA molecule is constrained on a surface (mimicking prebiotic surface monolayers), it becomes automatically selective for the L-enantiomers. Conversely, L-ribose RNA would have been selective for the D-isomers. Only the 2' aminoacylation of surface-bound RNA would have been stereoselective. This finding may explain the origin of the redundant 2' aminoacylation still undergone by a majority of today's amino acids before conversion to the 3' species required for protein synthesis. It is concluded that L-amino acid homochirality was predetermined by the prior evolution of D-ribose RNA and probably was chirally directed by the orientation of early RNA molecules in surface monolayers. (emphasis added)

---

Just to preclude an argument, Bailey's idea about surface constraint of RNA is also supported. See, for example Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490

quote:

---

The emergence of biochemical homochirality was a key step in the origin of life, yet prebiotic mechanisms for chiral separation are not well constrained. Here we demonstrate a geochemically plausible scenario for chiral separation of amino acids by adsorption on mineral surfaces. Crystals of the common rock-forming mineral calcite (CaCO3), when immersed in a racemic aspartic acid solution, display significant adsorption and chiral selectivity of D- and L-enantiomers on pairs of mirror-related crystal-growth surfaces. This selective adsorption is greater on crystals with terraced surface textures, which indicates that D- and L-aspartic acid concentrate along step-like linear growth features. Thus, selective adsorption of linear arrays of D- and L-amino acids on calcite, with subsequent condensation polymerization, represents a plausible geochemical mechanism for the production of homochiral polypeptides on the prebiotic Earth.

---

Does this answer your question?

To substantiate my claims further as you asked, I quote the following from In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 1.   The Law of Biogenesis:

quote:

---

The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

---

In other words, biogenesis has been experimentally demonstrated over and over. Abiogenesis has not. The above author cites philosophical reasons for believing in abiogenesis when he admits that biogenesis is "the only possible conclusion".Dear Rei, your definitions of spontaneous generation opposed to abiogenesis are not actually part of the theories. Spontaneous generation is defined - see my above post - as merely life coming from non-life. Abiogenesis has never been observed occurring, in the same way as null gravity here on earth has never been observed occurring. We can be reasonably certain that, were you to test both of these for a billion years, having been disproven once they would continue to be disproven. Large amounts of time do not make a disproven hypothesis more likely to happen. To substantiate my claim that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are in fact the same thing, and are used as such by scientists, I went to the Encyclopaedia Britannica website and typed in "abiogenesis". There was no entry for abiogenesis, but instead I was taken straight to "spontaneous generation":

quote:

---

also called Abiogenesis, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life. Pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example, were thus thought to produce mice, according to this theory, because after several weeks, there were mice in the rags.

---

From :Britannica
Therefore, substantiated by evidence, I have shown that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one and the same. Spontaneous generation is agreed to have been disproven by Pasteur et al., and since I have demonstrated that abiogenesis is identical to spontaneous generation, abiogenesis also has been disproven.Rei, I would like evidence to back up your claim that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis mean different things in scientific use. I would also very much be grateful to learn of evidence showing that either is possible.

You have shown that some sources use the two terms to mean the same thing. This is no way shows that the two are scientifically equivalent.More importantly: You have yet to explain how Pasteur's experiment applies to the origin of life 4 to 4.5 billion years ago. Until you do so, you're just flapping your trap.

Both your sources confirm that there is a clear distinction between the "archaic" ideas concering spontaneous generation that Pasteu disproved, and modern ideas of abiogenesis.Essentially your argument is to assert that since the dictionary definitions do not mention these differences then they do not exist. That is an absurd argument because it demands that the labels we attach to ideas must take precedence over that actual content of those ideas. You have not proven that the actual ideas are identical - and I find it hard to believe that you could honestly make a claim which is so evidently false.The closest to a substnative poitn in your post is the claim of Sullivan that the evidence renders biogenesis the only possible conclusion. This argument presumes that the evidence is complete enough ot reach a reliable conclusion which is false. At present abiogenesis is a live possibility and researchers are still making slow progress on that front.

Once again, I ask you: Show how Pasteur's experiment (a small volume of fairly uniform, low-energy input chemicals over a short period of time, being tested to see if it produced full-fledged bacteria or insects) matches up with a huge volume of completely non-uniform, often high-energy input chemicals over a long period of time. No scientist claims that what Pasteur was testing for occurs, or ever did; as a consequence, what you are claiming is a straw man.

quote:

---

Rei, I would like evidence to back up your claim that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis mean different things in scientific use

---

Spontaneous generation isn't used in scientific use, and thus retains its original definition (I challenge you to find just one scientific paper that uses it in a manner that isn't referring to its old usage). Abiogenesis is used in scientific use, and is used many, many papers, all of which refer to the context that I described. How many do you want? There are tons of them out there.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yoo-hoo, Defender? Was your question on homochirality sufficiently answered? (Post #48)

quote:

---

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity.

---

What scientists find difficult is the notion of modeling or testing a hypothesis based on something that can't by definition be tested empirically. A supernatural explanation is anything you want it to be, except an explanation.

quote:

---

It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.

---

A supernatural creative act could indeed be considered "impossible to reject" if there were evidence that such an act were possible in the first place. In the absence of such evidence, we have to depend on mechanisms we can detect, test, and understand. Show us how NOT using physical or chemical laws has ever produced a satisfactory explanation for natural phenomena. What else should we use?------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Actually, there have been experiments that test abiogenesis in primeval-earth conditions. According to Muncaster, R. (2002). A Skeptic's Search for God. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, the Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s attempted to synthesise life (NB: by human intelligent design) under the precise conditions that you inquired about. The result was that they produced some amino acids, but in a controlled artificial environment; 98% of the product was tar, somewhat detrimental to the survival of first life; amino acids could even more easily be destroyed by the same source that created them, whereas Miller and Urey caught the good stuff in a trap, which was again hardly the early earth's primeval conditions. Therefore, abiogenesis has indeed been tested under primeval conditions, with scientists attempting to prove it, and create life by intelligent design. Abiogenesis failed there.Rei, I thank you for your reply. I am not disputing that scientists use the term 'abiogenesis' (to mean basic life from non-life) much more nowadays than 'spontaneous generation'. My assertion is that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation actually mean the same thing, proof for which from several distinguished dictionaries and the Encyclopaedia Britannica I offered above. Scientists may utilise one term more than the other, but they still mean the same.I would be grateful for any proof that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are in any way defined as being different, or that either of them is remotely possible.defender

Muncaster is wrong. Miller and Urey attempted to reproduce the conditions on the early earth and see what it produced. They had no intention of actually producing life. Their experiment showed that under the conditions they believed represented the early earth, amino acids did indeed form. Since then we've found that that amino acids are actually pretty easy to form, and can be found even in space (in comets, for example).As it happens, since the time of their experiment our understanding of the early atmosphere has changed, and our understanding of the probable origins of life have also changed. It seems likely that life did not evolve in some 'mucky pond' on the earths surface, but rather in geothermal vents many miles from the surface. Not only do these vents form the necessary building blocks of life in great numbers, but they would also allow life to form in an environment protected from the devastating surface bombardment the early earth was undergoing.Also investigation of earth's lifeforms seems to show that hyperthermophiles (those microbes adapted to living in the heat found at geothermal vents) are in fact the closest to the ancient common ancestor. Of course, even in confirmed, this wouldn't show that life orginally emerged there, but only that the common ancestor lived there.

Indeed. According to Miller, Urey didn't even think that the experiment would produce positive results at all - and the actual results even exceeded Miller's more obvious expectations.Just a moment...Defender might also like to note this statement:
"But spontaneous generation means two things. One is the idea that life can emerge from a pile of rags. The other is that life was generated once, hundreds of millions of years ago. Pasteur never proved it didn't happen once, he only showed that it doesn't happen all the time. "Perhaps this time it'll sink in.

The subject is this sat pic:EO - 404 ErrorA few background comments.1) The gyres there where this shot taken are very slow. Discovered to be gyre by Prince Ranier's (the Prince who married Grace Kelly) grandfather by putting messages in bottles in 10 langauges and with write back requests and this showed that the currents, while slow, did indeed move in a gyre but in a slow manner.2) The thermohaline is a shallow warm layer of ocean.3) The warmer salt water is, the more conductive it becomes. Loosely, the heat energy causes disassociation of ions and that frees up electrons to move.4) Loosely, when you stir salt water that has air in it, the diassociation of ions (eg carbonic acid to CO2) frees up electrons to move. Intially, the oceans become more more conductive. The stirring of the ocean by the turn screws of large ships will increase the conductivity of the water stirred relative to the water around it, and do so in a pattern in a line of the path that the ship has taken.5) Particles of soot will impact cloud nucleation but also will line up with path of ship as the turn screw and the smoke stack are associated.Is it the particles in the air or how EMF moves in the ocean below, or both? What does this have to do with male and female sexuality?The dielectric is important to these ship contrail patterns because water will not let a capacitive coupling occur compared to air--by a factor of about 80. The ionosphere which is relatively positive because it loses electrons from convection and charge separations that bring electrons to ground, brings down in fair weather about 250 volts per meter positive. This capacitive coupling cannot occur nearly as efficiently over the clouds from the contrails because the dielectric from water content, as the coupling occurs, is much greater between ionosphere and ocean.It's all electrical and biological, baby.

mr./ms. defender sure has a long way to go before he/she manages to grasp the subject matter in order to debate properly on this topic. Please do not take this as an insult. frankly speaking i've heard too many people give the same evidence so many times that i've grown tired of it. primarily what we need is to analyze the data available ... both the pros and cons and then come to a conclusion based on hard fact. the problem is there is not enough data to clinch the matter either way ... so we can only wait and see ... as it is, even the data we have now is to a certain degree subjected to a very subjective point of view ... especially whilst groping around in the dark (i.e. when it's an entirely new field of study) ... take for example the recent studies on the MARS meteorite ... no one knows how to interpret those squiggles yet ... and till date we have papers published supporting the existence of bacteria like organisms and papers providing evidence to the contrary. How you prefer to look at the data will define how loud you shout !------------------
the KOBRA STRYKE's again

Why is abiogenesis tied to the theory of evolution? Well if life didn't arise from non-life via purely natural processes there is no reason to infer life's diversity arose via purely natural processes. It is that simple.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Why is abiogenesis tied to the theory of evolution?

---

It isn't. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. It has nothing to do with origins. It could have arisen naturalistically, been created by God, dropped by spores from the planet Qualax, or anything.

quote:

---

Well if life didn't arise from non-life via purely natural processes there is no reason to infer life's diversity arose via purely natural processes.

---

How deftly you linked together unrelated topics Please, elaborate: how do you reach this line of argument, seing as they're from different mechanisms.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."