Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution has been Disproven
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 23 of 301 (56130)
09-17-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by defenderofthefaith
09-17-2003 7:02 AM


Defender of the faith:
Take a clue.
Spontaneous generation:
In hours or days:
Small amounts of chemicals -> Insects
Abiogenesis + evolution:
In several billions of years:
Huge amounts of chemicals and energy sources -> polymers -> self replicating polymers -> hypercycles -> probionts -> prokaryotes -> eukaryotes -> colonial eukaryotes -> simple invertebrates -> simple chordates -> arthropods -> insects
Get the picture?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-17-2003 7:02 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 46 of 301 (56968)
09-22-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by defenderofthefaith
09-22-2003 8:37 AM


How many times does one have to state this?
Spontaneous generation: In a short time, in a small sample...
Simple chemicals -> Insects
Abiogensis: In many, many orders of magnitude more time, in a sample the size of planet Earth...
Simple chemicals -> polymers -> self-replicating polymers -> hypercycles -> probionts -> prokaryotes -> eukaryotes -> colonial eukaryotes -> simple chordates -> arthropods -> insects
Who cares what your dictionary says: This is how *scientists* use the term. Deal with it. Heating material in a small flask and letting it sit for a little while doesn't even remotely discuss the latter case. Not even *slightly*. If you disagree, please explain how it does, instead of just asserting.
As to your mother's jigsaw puzzle, pieces are incapable of connecting just by being shaken, unlike chemicals in the real world. If pieces could connect by being shaken, and connected forms were notably more stable than disconnected forms (both like real life), yes, your mother's puzzle would get completed just by shaking it for long enough. And, to make the analogy more like real life, there would have to be billions of ways the puzzle could be solved.
As for chirality, life *will* work when on the opposite chirality - only if everything is that other chirality. You simply cannot *MIX* chiralities. If a hypercycle ended up creating an incorrect chirality compound, that hypercycle would fail. Once we get to the around the hypercycle level, you're locked into whatever you start with, and producing incorrect chirality proteins means that you're selected against.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-22-2003 8:37 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 52 of 301 (57789)
09-25-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by defenderofthefaith
09-25-2003 5:54 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-25-2003 5:54 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 61 of 301 (73145)
12-15-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John Paul
12-15-2003 8:22 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 8:22 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by John Paul, posted 12-15-2003 9:55 PM Rei has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024