TheNewGuy03,
This statement is consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about my statement. The dead can not give birth to the living, and what does not move does not produce that which moves.
Consistency has nothing to do with it. You have made an assertion, you are now obliged to show why abiogenesis is impossible.
Though creation is also a theory, it has a more consistent basis. Evolution (also a theory) will attempt to make itself work by incorporating tests, some of which are inconclusive or irrelevant.
Er, no. Evolution is supported by evidence, creation isn't. Again, you seem to be attaching unwarranted importance to "consistency".
Watership Down is a consistent narrative. You
really believe rabbits talk & have their own god called El-Ahrairah? Consistency in science is the easy bit, the hard bit is supporting evidence. Evolution has it, creation doesn't.
The stratigraphy of the land as it has been dated is out of order. The younger rock layers lie below the older rock layers, and the younger, fresher soil always subsides above the older soil. Something's wrong.
You'll need to support this.
The
relative ages of rocks around the world were determined before radiometric dating appeared on the scene. And when it did it supported the relative age sequence. I'd love to know what ministry of misinformation you got that little gem from!
Make no mistake, radiometric dating isn't perfect, but the overwhelming number of results support the original stratigraphic sequencing that has been common knowledge for 150 years. Moreover, different methods with different potential areas for error all corroborate on any given sample, indicating that the potential errors, if present at all, are small.
The only evidence used to support macroevolution is polyploidy. This is, quite simply, mutation. There is no, I repeat, NO, evidence of transmutation between species.
Even polyploidy isn't macroevolution. Macroevolution is the sum of the processes that lead to the defining differences that warrant placement in higher taxonomic ranks. Evolution above the species level, in plain english.
In my opinion the best evidence of macroevolution having occurred is that cladistic analyses (of both fossil & molecular data) match the stratigraphic fossil record as well as it does.
Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.
quote:
Stratigraphic Consistency Index - Michael Benton
The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).
Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.
SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%).
Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?
Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.
Some of the above is fairly techie, I'd be happy to explain in more detail if you'd like.
The very nature of the word "abiogenesis" indicates that is has a beginning. See if that theory works when you die...I would love to see you come back to life.
Abiogenesis essentially involves the original appearance of a self replicating molecule. No one, I repeat no one, other than creationists, of course, resort to such an infantile misrepresentation of abiogenesis, to assert an entire multicellular organism popped into existence in a single generation from the "soup".
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2