Zero probability for Evolution

[Sand Dancer]

PREFACE, DIALOGS:

The difference between Creationism and Neo-Darwinism is the number of kinds.
It is well explained here:
Comprehension of Evolution and Creation

Please keep questing.

 

[tas8831]

PREFACE, DIALOGS:

Reviewer insults my scientific talents:
"I can't make heads or tails of this word salad, tbh."

And considering what follows that, there is good reason to do so.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

What abiogenesis has going for it is that it is a plausible and natural process. Creationists like to downplay it, but it actually can work, and is the best explanation of how the building blocks of life emerged. It is superior to creationist claims in that it's actually plausible. All the necessary elements of it working exist in reality. Creationists cant demonstrate their god exists, nor that any supernatural phenomenon exists.

You must have more evidence than the all the biologists and so forth in the scientific community because they haven't been able to answer how life began, and that is before they encounter the problem of chirality. Please let me know where you discovered this research.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Just a little quibble, but it is DNA that requires proteins in its synthesis. Proteins are the expression products of DNA, but they perform their functions without need of DNA apart from that.

We cannot rule out that these things can arise undirected through chains of natural chemical reactions. It has been demonstrated that RNA can behave like an enzyme. That amino acids can form naturally outside of biological systems.

I am not certain the probability is so great it puts it outside of possibility for these things to happen. Spontaneous chemical reactions that create new compounds happen rather frequently.

Just because science does not have a reasonable explanation for life originating does not mean that one does not exist.

Lots of problems to 'solve' including the chirality problem.

You are right but then again because someone cannot provide proof of a creator does not mean that one does not exist so I am unconvinced either way at the moment.

 

[F1fan]

You must have more evidence than the all the biologists and so forth in the scientific community because they haven't been able to answer how life began, and that is before they encounter the problem of chirality. Please let me know where you discovered this research.

Oh, look at the Urey-Miller experiment as how inorganic chemicals can become organic chemicals by natural processes. Now while this experiment has some flaws it does confirm that this chemical transformation can occur in nature. these organic chemicals sram the building blocks of life.

Let's note that I defer to what the experts report. There is ongoing research on how these chemicals can form in nature. it is a real and plausible phenomenon unlike the magic that theists prefer.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Oh, look at the Urey-Miller experiment as how inorganic chemicals can become organic chemicals by natural processes. Now while this experiment has some flaws it does confirm that this chemical transformation can occur in nature. these organic chemicals sram the building blocks of life.

Let's note that I defer to what the experts report. There is ongoing research on how these chemicals can form in nature. it is a real and plausible phenomenon unlike the magic that theists prefer.

Just a few points about the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment.

"1 They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may have rearranged the atoms into some other form.

2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.

3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids. Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to life".
LETTER: Science shows flaws in Miller-Urey experiment

 

[F1fan]

Just a few points about the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment.

1 They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may have rearranged the atoms into some other form.

2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.

3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids. Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to life.
Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:

As I noted it was flawed. But if you understand the phenomenon it tested it is plausible in nature, and can account for the existence of organic chemicals vastly better than the implausible magic of gods and creators.

So if you want to pick one over the other, it's abiogenesis, and not Genesis.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

As I noted it was flawed. But if you understand the phenomenon it tested it is plausible in nature, and can account for the existence of organic chemicals vastly better than the implausible magic of gods and creators.

So if you want to pick one over the other, it's abiogenesis, and not Genesis.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

Well. it can't account for the beginning of life that is the problem they are trying to solve and that by no means is there any certainty that they ever will especially if they are wrong.

To me the universe is magic, we are magic and so amazing with all that our nature encompasses, grief, love compassion and so much more, I don't find it so easy to believe that is as a result of a chemical anomaly. As we obviously exist I don't find it a great leap to believe that there is something much greater than us.

 

[metis]

Well. it can't account for the beginning of life that is the problem they are trying to solve and that by no means is there any certainty that they ever will especially if they are wrong.

To me the universe is magic, we are magic and so amazing with all that our nature encompasses, grief, love compassion and so much more, I don't find it so easy to believe that is as a result of a chemical anomaly. As we obviously exist I don't find it a great leap to believe that there is something much greater than us.

It is highly likely, imo, that the question of abiogenesis is always going to remain a question as it is a "hypothesis" and probably will always remain one.

 

[ecco]

You are right but then again because someone cannot provide proof of a creator does not mean that one does not exist so I am unconvinced either way at the moment.

Once you find the evidence for a creator, look for evidence that explains its origins.

Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:

Did you notice that he first published that book in 1983? Thirty-five years later and Evolution has more support than ever. So, I guess it hasn't collapsed.

That's not surprising given who the author is...

Scott Huse - RationalWiki

Scott M. Huse is a creationist who authored the book The Collapse of Evolution, which has gone through several editions and is still in print.[1]

The book is a haphazard compilation of just about every bad argument for creationism and then some. The usual PRATTle is pratted out for our edification (evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; there are no transitional fossils; radiometric dating cannot be trusted, ad nauseam).

It is riddled with factual errors. For example:

• Claims that according to evolutionary theory, humans descended from birds
• Also claims that evolutionists believe the duck-billed platypus is the evolutionary link between birds and mammals[2]
• Claims that human and dinosaur fossils have been found alongside each other, and this disproves evolution
• Cites a scientist who won the 1971 Nobel Prize in physics[3] as "winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in science"

Perhaps you could tell us Mr. Huse's degrees. He lists himself as a PhD. I could find nothing other than he has an associates degree.

 

[McBell]

Well. it can't account for the beginning of life that is the problem they are trying to solve and that by no means is there any certainty that they ever will especially if they are wrong.

To me the universe is magic, we are magic and so amazing with all that our nature encompasses, grief, love compassion and so much more, I don't find it so easy to believe that is as a result of a chemical anomaly. As we obviously exist I don't find it a great leap to believe that there is something much greater than us.

And so far as beliefs go, those are pretty standard.

However, they do not explain anything other than how good they make you feel.

 

[F1fan]

Well. it can't account for the beginning of life that is the problem they are trying to solve and that by no means is there any certainty that they ever will especially if they are wrong.

Science is looking into it. And if they can't figure it out it means we don't know. It DOESN'T mean we fall back on religious claims. If we are going to guess we go with the most likely answer, and that is abiogenesis.

To me the universe is magic, we are magic and so amazing with all that our nature encompasses, grief, love compassion and so much more, I don't find it so easy to believe that is as a result of a chemical anomaly. As we obviously exist I don't find it a great leap to believe that there is something much greater than us.

Sure, and most of those beliefs are what you adopted from your social experience, not knowledge, not facts, not reason. It feels good to believe all that, yes? That is why we humans believe in irrational beliefs that are often contrary to facts, because they feel good to us.

 

[Valjean]

Just a few points about the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment.

1 They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may have rearranged the atoms into some other form.

2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.

3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids. Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to life.
Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:

Urey-Miller was nearly 70 years ago. Don't you think biology's advanced significantly since then?

 

[tas8831]

You must have more evidence than the all the biologists and so forth in the scientific community because they haven't been able to answer how life began, and that is before they encounter the problem of chirality. Please let me know where you discovered this research.

You can try looking through some of Robert Hazen's work.

Can you point me to any research trying to explain how silicates (i.e., dust of the ground) can be converted into thousands of biologically relevant organic molecules? I've looked for years and can find nothing. Thanks.

 

[tas8831]

As we have no evidence that life exists on any other planets (have some respect for the Fermi paradox) maybe we should only consider the probability of life originating here on Earth.
The building blocks that started the evolutionary process such as DNA, RNA and protein molecules are preconditions to evolution and as life depends on genetic information any theory must provide an account of the origins of such information. To produce even a single functioning DNA molecule or protein in a pre-biotic setting that to put it down to chance even in a thirteen-billion-year-old universe is so small as to be absurd (probability). Even a marginally complex cell requires about one hundred complex proteins all operating in close collaboration. Then there is the chicken-and-egg paradox, proteins cannot arise apart from DNA, yet proteins need DNA to function. As yet there is no scientific explanation for the origin of such biological complexity and specificity and origin-of-life biology are unable to offer an adequate explanation of how life originated.

While self-organisation can produce systems of some complexity it doesn’t produce such complex systems as one finds in DNA, RNA and nucleic acids which are information-intensive systems.

All of the text that bolded and colored red is lifted, VERBATIM, from THIS SITE.

I believe plagiarism is frowned on on this site (it is against the rules), and I suspect that you are familiar with what plagiarism is as you claim to be in some sort of degree program.
Worse, your plagiarism is clearly intended to deceive the reader as you "cleverly" added a phrase or two and changed a word or two.

Very poor form, very dishonest, very sad.

That lack of integrity pointed out, do tell us about:

Genetic Information as it relates to the problem your hero and plagiarism target Meyer the non-biologist, non-information theorist claims exists.

The probability calculations implicit in this tripe your stole from Meyer:

"To produce even a single functioning DNA molecule or protein in a pre-biotic setting that to put it down to chance even in a thirteen-billion-year-old universe is so small as to be absurd"

Thanks!

 

[tas8831]

Can you write a SINGLE post without plagiarizing?

Just a few points about the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment.

1 They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may have rearranged the atoms into some other form.

2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.

3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids. Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to life.
Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:

Everything in red was stolen from some clown named "Jonathan Bracewell".

And Bracewell paraphrased from YEC dope Scott Huse.

Neither of whom seem to have a clue.

Then there is you.

Sad.

PEOPLE INTERESTED IN HONEST DISCUSSION - please google phrases from ANY post by ANY creationist that seems out of sorts, or is more than a few sentences in length. I have been able to catch more than a dozen creationists, on this forum alone, stealing the work of others to make it look like they know what they are talking about. It is sad shows how desperate and underinformed so many of them are.

 

[tas8831]

As I noted it was flawed. But if you understand the phenomenon it tested it is plausible in nature, and can account for the existence of organic chemicals vastly better than the implausible magic of gods and creators.

So if you want to pick one over the other, it's abiogenesis, and not Genesis.

Creationists love to misrepresent those experiments - they were never about 'creating life'. A nice interview with Miller HERE.

"In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions....
The experiments were done in Urey's lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, "I'd like to do those experiments". The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lots of problems to 'solve' including the chirality problem.

You are right but then again because someone cannot provide proof of a creator does not mean that one does not exist so I am unconvinced either way at the moment.

An explanation for the origin of life that is based on natural events and phenomena does not eliminate the existence of a Creator.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just a few points about the now discredited Urey-Miller experiment.

1 They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may have rearranged the atoms into some other form.

2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.

3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids. Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to life.
Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:

Interesting choice of reference. Have you reviewed any of the scientific literature on the subject?