No one should believe in evolution!

[Subduction Zone]

Biochemists are still undecided on whether the amino acids already exist on earth, or whether they came from meteorites or comets.

The evidences for both are here and now, but whether the ultimate origin of amino was terrestrial or extraterrestrial, we may never know.

It could even be a mixture of the two. The Miller -Urey experiment showed that they could have arisen naturally on the Earth. Then when the atmosphere used was doubted it was done again, and again, and again. They kept coming up with amino acids. Meanwhile as you pointed out separately they have been found in meteorites.

Now the work that is done is to see how it may have happened. Currently it sounds like there could be more than one pathway and since there is no record of the development of life we may never know exactly how it happened.

 

[gnostic]

It could even be a mixture of the two.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, that it could be both, hence the third probability, since they exist in both.

Now the work that is done is to see how it may have happened. Currently it sounds like there could be more than one pathway and since there is no record of the development of life we may never know exactly how it happened.

Yes.

I have been saying that we may never uncover the mysteries in the origin.

What I find ridiculous is when people say there are “zero evidence”, when it sitting there in front of their faces.

Thaif may disagree with evidences, but his claim that are 0 evidence, just demonstrated he doesn’t grasp the concept of scientific evidence.

Scientists disagree with each other all the time. And there are scientists who disagree with extraterrestrial origin, but they don’t deny that there are absolutely no evidences at all.

They don’t understand evidences, and they don’t understand that both abiogenesis and exogenesis (or panspermia) are ongoing hypotheses. Neither have been debunked.

NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are actively exploring the alternative origins, from asteroids, comets, meteors. It is one of the reasons why there are ongoing search for water in the Solar System, not just planets, but moons too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, that it could be both, hence the third probability, since they exist in both.


Yes.

I have been saying that we may never uncover the mysteries in the origin.

What I find ridiculous is when people say there are “zero evidence”, when it sitting there in front of their faces.

Thaif may disagree with evidences, but his claim that are 0 evidence, just demonstrated he doesn’t grasp the concept of scientific evidence.

Scientists disagree with each other all the time. And there are scientists who disagree with extraterrestrial origin, but they don’t deny that there are absolutely no evidences at all.

They don’t understand evidences, and they don’t understand that both abiogenesis and exogenesis (or panspermia) are ongoing hypotheses. Neither have been debunked.

NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are actively exploring the alternative origins, from asteroids, comets, meteors. It is one of the reasons why there are ongoing search for water in the Solar System, not just planets, but moons too.

That almost every creationist has no understanding of the concept of scientific evidence quickly becomes apparent in a discussion with them. They get terribly insulted when that fact is pointed out to them. What is amazing is rather than take the few minutes it takes to understand the concept they continue to waste time by making poor attacks on the theory of evolution. I started a thread on this concept and one poster here did at least try a little. After we went over the concept a bit I asked him if Lucy was scientific evidence for the evolution of man. He could not get himself to say that, even though in one post he did say that it fit the rules of being scientific evidence he still claimed it was not simply because he did not believe the theory. This is an example of the cognitive dissonance that they all seem to go through.

 

[Thaif]

I didn’t say that amino acids are life form, I have said that they are building block of living matters.

Living matters, not life form.

Proteins are living matters, and it is made of specific types of amino acids.

If you remove the amino acids from the proteins, then proteins wouldn’t exist.

Proteins are not "living matters". Everyone expects people "like me" to do my research but it's okay for people "like you" to come up with something you just made up. I'm having a crummy night so don't try to make stuff up and expect me to swallow it with any grace. A protein is a polymer and it is not alive. It's just a bunch of amino acids happily bonding like some sort of freak blob show.

 

[Thaif]

That amino acids were found in the meteorite, is not “zero evidence”, Thaif.

If they didn’t find amino acids in the Murchison meteorite, then I would agree with you about there being no evidence.

There are 70 different types of amino acids found in Murchison meteorite. Of those found in the meteorite, 15 amino acids in the meteorite, are what occurred naturally on earth.

As to whether amino acids originally come from the Earth itself, or from meteorites that crashed on Earth, we don’t know.

No ones know yet. And since amino acids can be found on meteorites, survive and exist after crashing, then I don’t see how you can deny it isn’t probable.

The amino acids are just one several probabilities.

I am not ignoring either probabilities (terrestrial or extraterrestrial origin), until there are more evidences to tip the scale, so I am open-minded about both scenarios.

To be fair, when you quote me like this, you should include your own quote

"And the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extra-terrestrial origin. So it isn’t “zero evidence” as you’ve claimed."

There is no evidence that naturally occurring amino acids, meteorite or otherwise spontaneously creates life, either here or anywhere else in the universe. The subject you are probably getting at is abiogenisis which might be thought of as the spontaneous creation of life from some raw ingredients and a bit of energy, lightning or UV rays from the sun for example. Something which has not been proven or replicated and which, it seems, that a lot of evolutionary scientists try to steer away from. In any case, I stand by my zero evidence statement.

And while we are at it, you suggest that

"the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extra-terrestrial origin.".

How about coughing up some of the many other evidences of which you speak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, when you quote me like this, you should include your own quote

"And the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extra-terrestrial origin. So it isn’t “zero evidence” as you’ve claimed."

There is no evidence that naturally occurring amino acids, meteorite or otherwise spontaneously creates life, either here or anywhere else in the universe. The subject you are probably getting at is abiogenisis which might be thought of as the spontaneous creation of life from some raw ingredients and a bit of energy, lightning or UV rays from the sun for example. Something which has not been proven or replicated and which, it seems, that a lot of evolutionary scientists try to steer away from. In any case, I stand by my zero evidence statement.

And while we are at it, you suggest that

"the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extra-terrestrial origin.".

How about coughing up some of the many other evidences of which you speak.

But there is evidence. You do not seem to understand the concept. There are several hypotheses of abiogenesis that deal with different parts of the process. These are all supported by evidence. There is no overarching theory of abiogenesis and due to the possibility of multiple separate paths to the formation of life there may never be a one single proper theory. But to claim there is no evidence only demonstrates that you do not understand the concept.

 

[Audie]

To be fair, when you quote me like this, you should include your own quote

"And the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extra-terrestrial origin. So it isn’t “zero evidence” as you’ve claimed."

There is no evidence that naturally occurring amino acids, meteorite or otherwise spontaneously creates life, either here or anywhere else in the universe. The subject you are probably getting at is abiogenisis which might be thought of as the spontaneous creation of life from some raw ingredients and a bit of energy, lightning or UV rays from the sun for example. Something which has not been proven or replicated and which, it seems, that a lot of evolutionary scientists try to steer away from. In any case, I stand by my zero evidence statement.

And while we are at it, you suggest that

"the discovery of these amino acids in the Murchison meteorite is just one evidence of many evidences supporting the extra-terrestrial origin.".

How about coughing up some of the many other evidences of which you speak.

The natural occurrence of various complex organic molecules is certainly evidence that complex
organic molecules do self assemble under a variety
of conditions.

I wonder if you would be able to point to the exact
difference between life and non life.
This would be a terrif advance for science.

The "steer away from" is a bit of insinuation that
you just made up btw.

 

[gnostic]

Proteins are not "living matters".

Ok...ok. I will give that, that I have used the wrong word for it.

I should have used “biological matters”, or “biological molecules”, or “organic matters”, or “organic compounds”.

Are you satisfied?

 

[ecco]

Proteins are not "living matters".

Perhaps you could give an all encompassing definition of "living matters" or "life" from a scientific standpoint. So far, science hasn't agreed on one.

For example this definition...

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
​

...indicates that mules are not "life" since they cannot reproduce.

ETA: Here...
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html
...is a good article on the subject.

 

[Audie]

Oh? You sure that a theory becomes a fact
after it has enough evidence?

 

[Shaul]

That almost every creationist has no understanding of the concept of scientific evidence quickly becomes apparent in a discussion with them. They get terribly insulted when that fact is pointed out to them. What is amazing is rather than take the few minutes it takes to understand the concept they continue to waste time by making poor attacks on the theory of evolution. I started a thread on this concept and one poster here did at least try a little. After we went over the concept a bit I asked him if Lucy was scientific evidence for the evolution of man. He could not get himself to say that, even though in one post he did say that it fit the rules of being scientific evidence he still claimed it was not simply because he did not believe the theory. This is an example of the cognitive dissonance that they all seem to go through.

I’ve had a different experience. I have seen many, many people that don’t understand both the creation narrative nor science who then presume to lecture others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve had a different experience. I have seen many, many people that don’t understand both the creation narrative nor science who then presume to lecture others.

I have severe doubts about your "understanding". Understanding that the story is a myth more than explains it. You probably make the error of reinterpreting after the fact.

 

[Audie]

I’ve had a different experience. I have seen many, many people that don’t understand both the creation narrative nor science who then presume to lecture others.

Life is full of fakers, including those who push the
creation story as fact.

 

[Shaul]

Life is full of fakers, including those who push the
creation story as fact.

As full as of those that conflate fact and truth.

 

[Shaul]

I have severe doubts about your "understanding". Understanding that the story is a myth more than explains it. You probably make the error of reinterpreting after the fact.

Understanding that it is a myth is hardly the end of understanding it, more like the beginning. Since, as a Jew, I read it in the original language I often have a distinct advantage in understanding the creation account. Why you say I probably make the error of reinterpreting it sans any evidence of that is strange.

 

[Audie]

As full as of those that conflate fact and truth.

So you figure things can be facts but not true?
You kind of sidestepped what I said about the creation myth.

 

[Audie]

Understanding that it is a myth is hardly the end of understanding it, more like the beginning. Since, as a Jew, I read it in the original language I often have a distinct advantage in understanding the creation account. Why you say I probably make the error of reinterpreting it sans any evidence of that is strange.

So in your understanding was there a 6 day poof and a flood
that covered the whole world, killing all but the ones on the boat, like, those things really happened?

That should cover whether you understand myth v facts.

 

[Shaul]

So you figure things can be facts but not true?
You kind of sidestepped what I said about the creation myth.

What I wrote is that they are distinct things. A scientific fact is simply something that is verifiable. Something that is true can certainly be independent being verifiable. Understand the difference? I know that many commonly use the words as synonyms. But they are wrong to do so, and scientifically imprecise. As I wrote some conflate the two.

Since this the first time I have seen use the word myth, I certainly am not sidestepping anything. You previously referred to creation stories. Now you are talking about it as a myth. Stories and myths are also two different things. Also please remember that myth is not a synonym for false nor wrong. Since that is correct I have no objection to someone referring to the Genesis account of creation as a myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Understanding that it is a myth is hardly the end of understanding it, more like the beginning. Since, as a Jew, I read it in the original language I often have a distinct advantage in understanding the creation account. Why you say I probably make the error of reinterpreting it sans any evidence of that is strange.

I have dealt with Bible thumpers or in your case Torah shakers for years. I have observed that behavior from all of them. I doubt if you would be the first not to fail in that manner. Almost all of them make the same claim s that you have, so not without evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you figure things can be facts but not true?
You kind of sidestepped what I said about the creation myth.

That old creationist two step.