"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[BilliardsBall]

Hazen's team has several publictions on the chirality issue, in which they have found that certain minerals favor the adhesion of organic molecules of specific chirality.
The thermodynamics thing was dismissed decades ago, I can't understand why creationists still bring it up.

It was most informative to see what you dodged or failed to reply to. Here is one of my original posts - what you ignored/dodged is in red:

Amazing stuff - I was unaware that bacteria are now considered fluids and that their movements require neurological and multiple systems also moving/catalyzing - even at a level devoid of life! Amazing insights!

But I note that did not explain why none of the papers (at least one of them from which you must have gleaned your appendix information) even contained the word "enzyme" even as they described the function of the appendix.

I would also like to learn more about this movement and catalysis - what is moving and what needs to be catalyzed for fluid bacteria to re-colonize the gut after a bout of diarrhea. I am especially intrigued about this prior-to-life level that you speak of - is that the spirit realm? Can't wait to see the evidence!


Having taught college genetics for about 6 years, yes, yes I am. Not sure what that has to do with enzymes or bacteria being fluid or the Spirit realm.​

"Amazing insights!" is the kind of rude sarcasm I would have reported you for already, if you were my college professor--as if belittling creationists is respectful or tolerant--or as if you in academia fear our tiny minority viewpoint!

I will answer these questions and others of yours after you apologize.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here you go: A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

Is that the start of a long list?
Asked and answered: A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

We already knew about chemical self-replicating structures like snowflakes. The new theory does not explain a fraction of a fraction of abiogenesis.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you explain how evolution defies chirality, thermodynamics and entropy?

Can you also explain why "macro"-evolution violates these but "micro"-evolution does not?

Yes, I can explain both of these things.

Thanks for asking.

 

[ratiocinator]

Can you explain how evolution defies chirality, thermodynamics and entropy?

Can you also explain why "macro"-evolution violates these but "micro"-evolution does not?

Yes, I can explain both of these things.

The fact that you didn't, suggests otherwise, as does the fact it doesn't.

 

[tas8831]

"Amazing insights!" is the kind of rude sarcasm I would have reported you for already, if you were my college professor--as if belittling creationists is respectful or tolerant--or as if you in academia fear our tiny minority viewpoint!

I will answer these questions and others of yours after you apologize.

LOL!

Hilarious - look, I get that you cannot address any of my questions in an informed way, but this whining to get out of a jam is just fantastic.

You have no answers - I know this because unlike you, I understand physiology. Pontificating on these subjects as if you understand them - then not being able to offer any explanations or support for those pontifications - is far worse for your position that is this fantasy "rude sarcasm" you whine about.

But you go on doing what you have to to try to justify your failing beliefs, and I will keep exposing the shortcomings of your claims that you offer no evidence or explanation for.


I was unaware that bacteria are now considered fluids and that their movements require neurological and multiple systems also moving/catalyzing - even at a level devoid of life!

But I note that did not explain why none of the papers (at least one of them from which you must have gleaned your appendix information) even contained the word "enzyme" even as they described the function of the appendix.

I would also like to learn more about this movement and catalysis - what is moving and what needs to be catalyzed for fluid bacteria to re-colonize the gut after a bout of diarrhea. I am especially intrigued about this prior-to-life level that you speak of - is that the spirit realm? Can't wait to see the evidence!

And I never will....

 

[tas8831]

The fact that you didn't, suggests otherwise, as does the fact it doesn't.

Careful! He will threaten to report you for... for... something!

 

[Sapiens]

We already knew about chemical self-replicating structures like snowflakes. The new theory does not explain a fraction of a fraction of abiogenesis.

It rather thoroughly debunks the lie that that the origin of life defies thermodynamics, that'll have to do for now ... requesting more is just your usual strawman move-the-goalpost suite of logical fallacies.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, I can explain both of these things.

Thanks for asking.

Your assurance that you can do those things is certainly enough to convince me. No, I don't need to actually SEE you do them, all I need is your word!

In a similar vein, there's a crazy old man down the street who assures me he is Amelia Earhart. I guess he must be telling the truth!

Or maybe you actually need to SHOW us that you can. Anyone can claim they can do anything - but without actually doing it, claims are meaningless.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Are you saying the fact that everything in the universe except biological evolution tends toward disorder and entropy is a "small" hurdle for science to overcome?

Biological evolution is an entropy increasing process within a closed system. Our closed system includes the Sun, which you seem to be forgetting. But taken as a whole, the entropy in the whole system increases. Locally, entropy may seem to decrease, but that's acceptable in physics as long as the entropy increases elsewhere by a proportional amount within the same system, which it does.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Your assurance that you can do those things is certainly enough to convince me. No, I don't need to actually SEE you do them, all I need is your word!

In a similar vein, there's a crazy old man down the street who assures me he is Amelia Earhart. I guess he must be telling the truth!

Or maybe you actually need to SHOW us that you can. Anyone can claim they can do anything - but without actually doing it, claims are meaningless.

Note

the user demands resolution of ALL known problems in Abiogenesis before contemplating it as a possibility, but expects you to just take his word that he can adequately answer your questions.

 

[Prestor John]

Anyone can be. That doesn't mean everyone IS. To be a scientist, you have to use the scientific method, which, by definition, means being willing to change beliefs in the face of new evidence.

View attachment 27126

I never said everyone was a scientist.

A scientist is more than just a person who knows and uses the scientific method. They must have an expert knowledge.

However, scientists are human too, with biases, and can also cling to their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Tiberius]

I never said everyone was a scientist.

A scientist is more than just a person who knows and uses the scientific method. They must have an expert knowledge.

However, scientists are human too, with biases, and can also cling to their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

Define "expert knowledge."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said everyone was a scientist.

A scientist is more than just a person who knows and uses the scientific method. They must have an expert knowledge.

However, scientists are human too, with biases, and can also cling to their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

Now you are making up your own false definition.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A scientist is more than just a person who knows and uses the scientific method. They must have an expert knowledge.

incorrect

However, scientists are human too, with biases, and can also cling to their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

That is what the scientific method avoids. Bias CAN be an issue, but assuming it is any time science claims anything you don't like is just as bad.

 

[BilliardsBall]

LOL!

Hilarious - look, I get that you cannot address any of my questions in an informed way, but this whining to get out of a jam is just fantastic.

You have no answers - I know this because unlike you, I understand physiology. Pontificating on these subjects as if you understand them - then not being able to offer any explanations or support for those pontifications - is far worse for your position that is this fantasy "rude sarcasm" you whine about.

But you go on doing what you have to to try to justify your failing beliefs, and I will keep exposing the shortcomings of your claims that you offer no evidence or explanation for.


I was unaware that bacteria are now considered fluids and that their movements require neurological and multiple systems also moving/catalyzing - even at a level devoid of life!

But I note that did not explain why none of the papers (at least one of them from which you must have gleaned your appendix information) even contained the word "enzyme" even as they described the function of the appendix.

I would also like to learn more about this movement and catalysis - what is moving and what needs to be catalyzed for fluid bacteria to re-colonize the gut after a bout of diarrhea. I am especially intrigued about this prior-to-life level that you speak of - is that the spirit realm? Can't wait to see the evidence!

And I never will....

Based on your responses, and your disdain of my knowledge, desire and intellect, do you think we should proceed?

1) Bacteria are not fluids and do not need new systems moving/catalyzing--unless you believe they are antecedents in lines of descent to higher forms.

2) I used the word enzyme or enzymatic action in terms of bacteria are released by cecal appendices in animals based on trigger factors, we have the same issues with complexity as always, including survivability during evolution of organ, survivability of species through generations as needed appendix evolved, linkage to cell and neurological systems that prompt appendix to act, recognition of condition for appendix to act, etc. with each system of linkage multiplying the total complexity by an order of magnitude.

3) You do NOT need to learn more about this movement and catalysis--you are being rhetorical--you understand both biology and modern evolutionary theory, however, in the case of a cecal appendix evolving in 40 different lines of descent--40 lines of descent where there was survival and enhanced, complex function, than 40 evolutions of an organ into a system, than 40 cases of vestigial organs, etc. I find it unlikely and "awkward" given mechanistic evolution. I further was allowing flexibility in my abiogenesis assumptions/gedanken by acknowledging that theoretical self--replicating proto-bionts are an intermediate step. This is called "attempting to see the other side," something you might try sometime.

I think you, in the opposite of your remarks above, "can wait" to see the evidence for the spiritual realm. I base this on your pedantic, inflexible views regarding evolution, morphology and possibility, as well as your general rude demeanor and consistent resorting to ad homs and repeating inane rhetorical questions. Better minds than us aren't a fraction as inflexible as your but-but-evolutiondidit protestations, that is, highly intelligent scientists in your areas of discipline are addressing the questions I raised with open minds. Prayer could help--mine, not yours--I cannot ask you to pray here at RF, but I'll pray for you!

PS. Please tell me if you teach, you are far less rude to inquiring students, be they Christian or secular.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Based on your responses, and your disdain of my knowledge, desire and intellect, do you think we should proceed?

1) Bacteria are not fluids and do not need new systems moving/catalyzing--unless you believe they are antecedents in lines of descent to higher forms.

2) I used the word enzyme or enzymatic action in terms of bacteria are released by cecal appendices in animals based on trigger factors, we have the same issues with complexity as always, including survivability during evolution of organ, survivability of species through generations as needed appendix evolved, linkage to cell and neurological systems that prompt appendix to act, recognition of condition for appendix to act, etc. with each system of linkage multiplying the total complexity by an order of magnitude.

3) You do NOT need to learn more about this movement and catalysis--you are being rhetorical--you understand both biology and modern evolutionary theory, however, in the case of a cecal appendix evolving in 40 different lines of descent--40 lines of descent where there was survival and enhanced, complex function, than 40 evolutions of an organ into a system, than 40 cases of vestigial organs, etc. I find it unlikely and "awkward" given mechanistic evolution. I further was allowing flexibility in my abiogenesis assumptions/gedanken by acknowledging that theoretical self--replicating proto-bionts are an intermediate step. This is called "attempting to see the other side," something you might try sometime.

I think you, in the opposite of your remarks above, "can wait" to see the evidence for the spiritual realm. I base this on your pedantic, inflexible views regarding evolution, morphology and possibility, as well as your general rude demeanor and consistent resorting to ad homs and repeating inane rhetorical questions. Better minds than us aren't a fraction as inflexible as your but-but-evolutiondidit protestations, that is, highly intelligent scientists in your areas of discipline are addressing the questions I raised with open minds. Prayer could help--mine, not yours--I cannot ask you to pray here at RF, but I'll pray for you!

PS. Please tell me if you teach, you are far less rude to inquiring students, be they Christian or secular.

Perhaps some students go out of their way to earn disdain. He might not treat them quite as nicely as polite ones. And remember when you say that you will pray for someone you are all but begging for them to say "And I will think for you" it is just as rude to assume that someone needs your prayer or that it will do them any good as it is for others to tell you that they will think for you.


When you are complaining about others being rude it is wise to avoid blatantly rude phrases.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It rather thoroughly debunks the lie that that the origin of life defies thermodynamics, that'll have to do for now ... requesting more is just your usual strawman move-the-goalpost suite of logical fallacies.

It didn't thoroughly debunk anything, and I didn't bother to post a quotation within the article you posted, urging readers to take the results/conclusions with a grain of salt, since I knew you yourself didn't even read the same article (which I read some weeks back, before you posted it).

And be careful when you say "origin of life defies entropy" since that would make you the sole scientist who knows what abiogenesis is/was! Careful, partner!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your assurance that you can do those things is certainly enough to convince me. No, I don't need to actually SEE you do them, all I need is your word!

In a similar vein, there's a crazy old man down the street who assures me he is Amelia Earhart. I guess he must be telling the truth!

Or maybe you actually need to SHOW us that you can. Anyone can claim they can do anything - but without actually doing it, claims are meaningless.

I was being facetious. Now you are, also.

What did you need me to show you? Nothing. Jesus explained that "if anyone wants to research for themself, they can see I come from God and do God's will."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Biological evolution is an entropy increasing process within a closed system. Our closed system includes the Sun, which you seem to be forgetting. But taken as a whole, the entropy in the whole system increases. Locally, entropy may seem to decrease, but that's acceptable in physics as long as the entropy increases elsewhere by a proportional amount within the same system, which it does.

Please explain, via formulae or lay terms, whatever you prefer, how input in the system balanced entropy during abiogenesis, so we can award you two Nobel prizes, one for explaining how abiogenesis overcame entropy, and a second one for your psychic ability to go back in time and discern whether it was mechanisticdidit or goddidit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain, via formulae or lay terms, whatever you prefer, how input in the system balanced entropy during abiogenesis, so we can award you two Nobel prizes, one for explaining how abiogenesis overcame entropy, and a second one for your psychic ability to go back in time and discern whether it was mechanisticdidit or goddidit.

This is rather nonsensical and only tells us that you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Can you tell me what you think that the law says? Please use your own words. It is the creationists that demand that abiogenesis violates the law. Our question is "How?". You made the claim, you need to support it.