Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[SkepticThinker]

The title here is telling "Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network"

Now, please give me an example of an RNA replicator.

Try reading beyond the headline.

 

[metis]

Science is inherently naturalistic, it cannot and will not evidence God nor should it logically, based on its own constraints. Just because some/many scientists are religious, the concept of abiogenesis is anti-religious.

It is not "anti-religious" since it still begs the question as to Who or what created all that may have gone into it? IOW, what Aquinas called "the Immoveable Mover".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Supernovae, black holes, burnt houses and car accidents are all observed currently.

False.

We don't observe supernova. What we observe are very bright lights in the sky, which are concluded to be supernova (that have occurred a VERY LONG TIME AGO, and what we observe is the effect of it).

As for black holes... you can't even observe black holes on the count that they are "black" (ie: do not emmit light). What we see is indirect evidence thereof like lensing.

As for the burned down house, yes we observe houses burning. But those are other instances thereof. I was talking about the house in the picture. Same with the carcrash.
We can't repeat THAT fire and THAT crash in the lab. Or any other testing ground for that matter.

What we can do, is investigate the evidence they left behind and retro-actively reconstruct what likely happened.

Abiogenesis is neither observed nor reproducible

Neither are any of the 4 things I mentioned./

Go ahead: "reproduce" me a black hole, or observe one.
Or "reproduce" or "observe" me a car crash that has already occurred.

If it's not a problem with those things, then why is it a problem with abiogenesis?
Even if and when we come up with possible, or even just plausible pathways by which organic chemicals CAN produce things we could call "alive".. we would not be able to determine that that was the exact way it happened on this planet (or on some other planet, like Mars, if life was seeded here by space rocks from elsewhere).

And that is a very likely outcome in the field of abiogenesis. It might very well be the case that there's a myriad of ways by which life could arise without us ever knowing which one is the one that happened to our ancient ancestors.

 

[metis]

Euglena is complete, functioning life.

Of course, it is, but it shows what you said doesn't exist, namely a simplistic form of "eye" that is light-sensitive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know what a transitory fossil is,

The stuff you write about it, demonstrates otherwise.

there are no fossils that are themselves in transitions.

Stuff like that.

Anyone can compare animals with similar features or amphibians to sea and land based life and claim 1-2-3 in order.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Spontaneous generation was based on observation and assumption, changed via the advent of microscopes and a closer, more informed look.

Abiogenesis flies in the face of modern biology, which has found the simplest life to obey rules of chirality, complexity, order and DESIGN.

Case in point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Base protein forms? The "simplest" life requires hundred of proteins. If I placed bricks into thermal soup or vulcanic ocean, would you expect skyscrapers to form, given enough time? Why or why not?

Science is inherently naturalistic, it cannot and will not evidence God nor should it logically, based on its own constraints. Just because some/many scientists are religious, the concept of abiogenesis is anti-religious.

Abiogenesis isn't "anti-religious." It's an hypothesis about how living matter could have emerged from non-living matter. We know this had to happen at some point, because once there was no life on earth, and now there is. What's anti-religious about that, exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Base protein forms? The "simplest" lif


Euglena is complete, functioning life.

All creatures are "complete, functioning life."

Your view of evolution is truly bizarre. I think you're getting your science information from Kirk Cameron, which seems to be something of a giant mistake.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't know what "half" is? I didn't say "apologetics exist to make fully formed wings half wings". I'm rather saying there are NO half wings in the record and no forms know showing evolution.

Neither observed nor duplicable means abiogenesis is one of several alternatives, indeed abiogenesis would be so difficult that many adhere to space seed theory, which just begs the question, of course.

There are "half wings" in the record and you've been given examples. Though not what you're imagining, apparently.
Penguins have wings that they can't use to fly. They use them to glide through the water instead.


That's as close to a "half-formed" anything that you're going to get in evolution. Your imaginings about what we should expect to find would actually falsify evolution - one species giving birth to another and such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is "better" over that century? What has abiogenesis research yielded?

Many things that you aren't even aware about it seems.

Here's just one simple example found after 2 seconds on google:

Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum | Science | AAAS

The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA's four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes


That by itself is already more accomplishment then +6000 years of religion has yielded.

That imaginary prebiotic life or imaginary self-replicating RNA made all.

There's nothing imaginary about RNA.
There's nothing imaginary about how the "complex" building blocks of life form quite happily through ordinary chemistry. Building blocks that people like you branded "too complex" to be natural before it was shown how nature could produce such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, flightless birds have full wings. Perhaps you can give an example of current species evidencing transition at this time, that may be observed?

Another example of how you expose that you have no clue what a transitional is.
Your question makes absolutely no sense as it would include predicting the future of species, which can not be done.

A transitional is a fossil that exhibits traits of its ancestors as well as its descendants.
In other words, you need descendants.

Tiktaalik is a transitional from fish-like sea life to land dwellers.
It has both physiological traits of its fish-like ancestors as well as land dwellers that came after it.
It has been called a "fish-apod" for that reason.

If in the future homo sapiens evolves into a subspecies, then Homo Sapiens will be a transitional between Homo Erectus and that subspecies.
If Homo Sapiens goes extinct before speciating, then Homo Sapiens was just the end of the line.


Derp-di-derp-derp.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another example of how you expose that you have no clue what a transitional is.
Your question makes absolutely no sense as it would include predicting the future of species, which can not be done.

A transitional is a fossil that exhibits traits of its ancestors as well as its descendants.
In other words, you need descendants.

Tiktaalik is a transitional from fish-like sea life to land dwellers.
It has both physiological traits of its fish-like ancestors as well as land dwellers that came after it.
It has been called a "fish-apod" for that reason.

If in the future homo sapiens evolves into a subspecies, then Homo Sapiens will be a transitional between Homo Erectus and that subspecies.
If Homo Sapiens goes extinct before speciating, then Homo Sapiens was just the end of the line.


Derp-di-derp-derp.

And not even necessarily descendants. It only needs species that are close relatives to have descendants. Tiktaalik does not have to be an ancestral species for it to be transitional. It only needs to be closely related to an ancestral species.

 

[Jose Fly]

Huh? This thread has reams of garbage like "Bu-bu-but only one RNA replicator would be needed for abiogenesis".

Name an RNA replicator here or not, and you'll see what I meant by "mouth foam".

You're not making sense. Saying there's evidence for certain hypotheses about abiogenesis is not the same thing as saying that's definitely how it happened. Hopefully you understand the difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not making sense. Saying there's evidence for certain hypotheses about abiogenesis is not the same thing as saying that's definitely how it happened. Hopefully you understand the difference.

Creationists cannot afford to understand the concept of evidence. They seem to think that one single piece of evidence has to be absolute proof. There are very few examples of evidence that are on their own "proof" for evolution. Of course you know it is the totality of the evidence that lets us know that life is the product of evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationists cannot afford to understand the concept of evidence. They seem to think that one single piece of evidence has to be absolute proof. There are very few examples of evidence that are on their own "proof" for evolution. Of course you know it is the totality of the evidence that lets us know that life is the product of evolution.

They deny whatever is against their beliefs.

When scientific consensus is against their beliefs, they deny the importance of consensus.

When peer review is against their beliefs, they deny the value of peer review.

When the conclusions of experts are against their beliefs, they deny the value of expertise.

And as you note, when the evidence is against their beliefs, they deny the evidence (some even deny that it exists at all).

Given how they're literally fighting for their deeply held beliefs, they pretty much have to operate under the "by any means necessary" framework. Heck, I had one creationist tell me that even if he dug up a transitional fossil himself and held it in his own hands, he'd have no choice but to deny its existence since it went against what he believed.

 

[Tiberius]

There are reasons the conjectured abiogenesis doesn't happen again, I agree. There are reasons (biblical also) why all fossil and modern species are finished, complete. There is further a reason(s) why abiogeneis is non-duplicable in a lab.

Abiogenesis, neither observed nor duplicable, is conjecture.

However, what we see in the real world is entirely consistent with evolution. The same can not be said for creationism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And not even necessarily descendants. It only needs species that are close relatives to have descendants. Tiktaalik does not have to be an ancestral species for it to be transitional. It only needs to be closely related to an ancestral species.

I know off course.
But left it out for the sake of simplicity because clearly it's hard for certain people to understand rather simple things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know off course.
But left it out for the sake of simplicity because clearly it's hard for certain people to understand rather simple things.

Unfortunately I have found that if creationists understand a concept at all they will try to twist it. I have seen them read articles that as part of the article it will explain that tiktaalik is likely not ancestral and that will all they can see. From that they would go on to say that meant that it was not transitional.

 

[gnostic]

All creatures are "complete, functioning life."

Your view of evolution is truly bizarre. I think you're getting your science information from Kirk Cameron, which seems to be something of a giant mistake.

Some years ago, I had to ask who this Kirk Cameron is?

Found out that he was actor in family comedy, playing a dope of a teenager. It would seem that he wasn’t acting at all, he is the village’s idiot in real life, a former actor pretending to understand sciences more than physicists and more than biologists.

What a moron.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some years ago, I had to ask who this Kirk Cameron is?

Found out that he was actor in family comedy, playing a dope of a teenager. It would seem that he wasn’t acting at all, he is the village’s idiot in real life, a former actor pretending to understand sciences more than physicists and more than biologists.

What a moron.

He was on my favourite show when I was growing up - Growing Pains. Of course, I didn't know when I was watching it that he was something of a nut job.
Since then he has teamed up with various creationists like Ray Comfort - aka "The banana man" - and travelled around the country pushing anti-evolution bilge. Look up "crocoduck" just for fun.

This quote from him pretty much sums it all up:

"Learn how to share your Faith Effectively and Biblically. To be able to reason with people, learn to circumnavigate or go around the person's intellect."