Abiogenesis Is Not Working, So What's Next? Panspermia.

[james bond]

So the guys who run evolutionary game theory simulations would have to make assumptions about how life began?

You're asking the wrong person, but what does the General ToE say?

 

[columbus]

You're asking the wrong person, but what does the General ToE say?

It doesn't *say* anything.
You may prefer to believe differently. But the facts remain. The origins of life on Earth and the Origins of Species are not the same thing.
Tom

 

[james bond]

It doesn't *say* anything.
You may prefer to believe differently. But the facts remain. The origins of life on Earth and the Origins of Species are not the same thing.
Tom

Sounds like denial and you're not answering my question. Again what does the General Theory of Evolution say?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Sounds like denial and you're not answering my question. Again what does the General Theory of Evolution say?

According to your source, it says one particular thing, which I've addressed and you've ignored.

Can you find that definition cited anywhere else, other than Conservapedia or Creation.com?

Is there an actual scientific source which uses Kerkut's definition? Anywhere? At all?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sounds like denial and you're not answering my question. Again what does the General Theory of Evolution say?

Can't seem to find any credible sources for this so-called "General Theory of Evolution".

 

[columbus]

Sounds like denial and you're not answering my question. Again what does the General Theory of Evolution say?

Nothing!
If you follow the science you will understand that how life appeared on Earth is a different issue from how it became what it is now, billions of years later.
Why is this so hard to understand?

Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like denial and you're not answering my question. Again what does the General Theory of Evolution say?

From: Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

"Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.

These lines of evidence include:

• Fossil evidence
• Homologies
• Distribution in time and space
• Evidence by example"

 

[gnostic]

From: Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

"Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.

These lines of evidence include:

• Fossil evidence
• Homologies
• Distribution in time and space
• Evidence by example"

James Bond and other creationists all have ignorant and misinformed views on species.

They want examples from biologists, like a dog giving birth to cat, or other similar incredible stupidity.

Speciation only works in degrees. And don't make huge jump from species of one family to a new species of a very different family.

They don't understand huge changes, in the short amount of time, of the type they talking about, is not possible in evolution.

Until they understand what speciation really mean in biology, they will continue to make outrageous stupid claims. In short, they want some supernatural miracles.

 

[gnostic]

Sounds like denial and you're not answering my question. Again what does the General Theory of Evolution say?

Can't seem to find any credible sources for this so-called "General Theory of Evolution".

There is no such thing as "General Theory of Evolution", JB.

Drop the "General".

There are only one Theory of Evolution, but under this theory, are a number of mechanisms, which "evolution" can occur.

For examples, Natural Selection, Mutation, Genetic Drift.

 

[Yerda]

You're asking the wrong person, but what does the General ToE say?

In my experience, mathematical models of evolutionary change start with the assumption that populations exist. Selection studies of DNA and RNA molecules assume that DNA and RNA exists. Studies of the evolution of protein structures normally start from the position that proteins exist etc.

See a pattern?

 

[shunyadragon]

In my experience, mathematical models of evolutionary change start with the assumption that populations exist. Selection studies of DNA and RNA molecules assume that DNA and RNA exists. Studies of the evolution of protein structures normally start from the position that proteins exist etc.

See a pattern?

Yes, and they do indeed exist.

 

[james bond]

In my experience, mathematical models of evolutionary change start with the assumption that populations exist. Selection studies of DNA and RNA molecules assume that DNA and RNA exists. Studies of the evolution of protein structures normally start from the position that proteins exist etc.

See a pattern?

First, the University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.

From soup to cells — the origin of life

No. Would agree with the first example, but proteins and DNA and RNA do not suddenly begin to exist the way you assume.

 

[Yerda]

First, the University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.

Thanks for the link. It would be reasonable to teach a little about abiogenesis in such a course. They don't teach that you need to assume abiogensis for evolutionary models to work, do they?

Would agree with the first example, but proteins and DNA and RNA do not suddenly begin to exist the way you assume.

OK. I'm just saying that what I've read on selection studies of RNA started with the RNA and studied how selection is affected without pondering how they got here. Same goes for protein structure.

 

[shunyadragon]

First, the University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.

From soup to cells — the origin of life

Being offered in a course with evolution does not make abiogenesis a part of evolution. as described in the course outline it is in a section of its own and would be abiogenesis regardless. An undergraduate basic course does not define abiogenesis as a part of evolution.

No. Would agree with the first example, but proteins and DNA and RNA do not suddenly begin to exist the way you assume.

It is not described nor assumed in what scientists consider abiogenesis as RNA and DNA suddenly appearing.

 

[james bond]

Being offered in a course with evolution does not make abiogenesis a part of evolution. as described in the course outline it is in a section of its own and would be abiogenesis regardless. An undergraduate basic course does not define abiogenesis as a part of evolution.



It is not described nor assumed in what scientists consider abiogenesis as RNA and DNA suddenly appearing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Interesting response to someone who was making a perfectly valid point.

 

[james bond]

Interesting response to someone who was making a perfectly valid point.

. Nothing valid about it. If it's in evolution.berkeley.com, then it's in evolution ha ha.

 

[McBell]

There is much less than a 1% chance that the universe will cease to exist in an eye blink. The same probability exists that abiogenesis somehow happened. So what you are saying is that since abiogenesis 'obviously' happened, the universe should certainly cease to exist quite soon. Good to know.

Of course there is a much better and more likely possibility...

Please show your math.

Thank you.

Still waiting....

 

[McBell]

... ... proteins and DNA and RNA do not suddenly begin to exist the way you assume.

Please show us why your assumption is more valid?

 

[columbus]

. Nothing valid about it. If it's in evolution.berkeley.com, then it's in evolution ha ha.

One of the big differences between religionists and scientists is that religionists are more attached to human authority. An elementary level biology class doesn't define science, even if the class is from a big university.
Abiogenesis is not directly related to speciation. It doesn't matter how thoroughly you misunderstand that.
Tom