randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

randman · #11 20th June 2002, 11:22 PM

Btw, I noticed Talkorigins has corrected some of the things they were blasted for by the suppossed dummy creationists, but there is more error there.

Be patient. The micro as observation of macro is a big error, and just propaganda.

randman · #12 20th June 2002, 11:30 PM

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go). "

This just pure propaganda. He makes it out like the nature of these chemicals is such that they can easily be expected to produce life. Nothing but pure propaganda, not reflective of the scientific evidence and problems at all. The fact is the idea that life could have spontaneously generated from chemicals has huge daunting problems, and is extremely speculative, and I would say highly improbable. Talkorigins deliberately misrepresents the reality of the problems with abiogenesis theory.

Morat · #13 20th June 2002, 11:45 PM

Just out of curiosity, did you, by chance, actually go to the linked FAQs for more information?

I mean, just by chance? Or did you just read the few paragraphs devoted to abiogenesis, ignore the link to the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ, and pretend that's all there is?

Morat · #14 20th June 2002, 11:52 PM

Calling micro-evolutionary changes evidence for macro-evolution without demonstrating it is what is wrong here. The contention is that macro-evolution has been observed, and that is just pure BS. It has not been observed. The FAQ is just in total error and denial there. if you want to argue it can't be observed without thousands of years, then fine, but don't just flat out lie and claim macro-evolution has been observed especially in denouncing a critic. Micro-evolution may be the proposed mechanism, but it hasn't been proven. To denounce criticism based on this point, the evolutionist must have observed micro-evolution producing macro-evolution and this just hasn't been done.

Moreover, the fossil record does not show species gradually evolving. Species appear suddenly, and exhibit little change. There are no fossils showing micro-evolutionary changes adding up to major changes. PE attempts to address this point, but that is another issue.

Macroevolution is speciation. There are two large lists of observed speciation events.

Thus calling it "Fact" isn't "total error and denial" but reflective of reality. If you think otherwise, I'm fully prepared for you to explain how each of the speciation events in both FAQs are not real speciation events.

Can't wait.

As for the fossil record, you have been corrected numerous times. Continue to lie merely makes you look desperate. Talk.Origins has a large FAQ listing vertebrate (and another for Hominid) transitional fossils.

This just pure propaganda. He makes it out like the nature of these chemicals is such that they can easily be expected to produce life. Nothing but pure propaganda, not reflective of the scientific evidence and problems at all. The fact is the idea that life could have spontaneously generated from chemicals has huge daunting problems, and is extremely speculative, and I would say highly improbable. Talkorigins deliberately misrepresents the reality of the problems with abiogenesis theory.

I notice you asserting this, but you don't mention what part of the FAQ you disagree with.

Do you agree that chemicals react, not in random ways, but in ways in accordance with their chemical properties? (IE, do you accept chemistry?).

Do you agree that, especially in the case of carbon especially, large molecules form sponteanously? (If not, you have to explain the amino acids they find in space, boyo).

Do you agree that self-replicating molecules do exist? (I can point some out to you, if you want to know)

Do you agree that, once molecules begin to replicate, the more efficient ones will replicate faster and produce more copies?

Which part of this don't you agree with?

You haven't dissected the FAQ. You've offered nothing, in fact, but bare assertation that the FAQ is wrong. No real reasoning, certainly no references...nothing.

You don't even do a good a job as the True Origins guy did. Even though he misquoted references and basically showed huge ignorance of thermo, he at least tried to support his arguments.

D. Scarlatti · #15 21st June 2002, 01:30 AM

randman, you've already asserted several times that the entire corpus of talkorigins is propaganda. That's why I thought it would be a piece of cake for you to pick a FAQ and destroy it piece by piece by employing your scintillating powers of logic and inductive inference, applying your vast storehouse of biological and biochemical knowledge.

I thought by now you'd be referencing journal articles by the dozen, refuting those bald faced lies, that shameless propaganda posted at talkorigins.

Simply repeating the same old assertions is not what I had in mind. And you're still insisting on that poorly defined "spontaneous generation" business too.

So disappointing randman! Come on, you can do better than that. Can't you?

npetreley · #16 21st June 2002, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Ray K

Kind of like how creationists assert the existance of God?

Yeah, exactly like that. Because everyone knows that creationists insist they have scientific evidence for the existence of God and can recreate God in the lab. Perfect analogy, there.

npetreley · #17 21st June 2002, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Morat

Macroevolution is speciation.

Dirt is creation.

Funny how saying things are so doesn't make them true.

In the first place, there are a number of different definitions of speciation. In the second place, nobody has ever demonstrated that the speciation to which you are no doubt referring (reproductive isolation) has led to anything but reproductive isolation, let alone macroevolution of the type that would eventually produce a kangaroo out of a bacteria.

Jerry Smith · #18 21st June 2002, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by randman

Calling micro-evolutionary changes evidence for macro-evolution without demonstrating it is what is wrong here.

I can't see how a statement like that needs much more demonstration. Soil erosion is one mechanism for river-course changing. Demonstrating small amounts of soil erosion do take place is a major and important piece of evidence for any theory that explains the change of a river-course by soil erosion.

In general, if your theory has a proposed mechanism for its action, proof the mechanism acts as expected is evidence for your theory.

Jerry Smith · #19 21st June 2002, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by randman
"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go). "

This just pure propaganda. He makes it out like the nature of these chemicals is such that they can easily be expected to produce life. Nothing but pure propaganda, not reflective of the scientific evidence and problems at all. The fact is the idea that life could have spontaneously generated from chemicals has huge daunting problems, and is extremely speculative, and I would say highly improbable. Talkorigins deliberately misrepresents the reality of the problems with abiogenesis theory.

You make your case poorly. I don't see where the author claimed that abiogenetic hypotheses were proved. He merely demonstrates why they do not require any mechanism that it is unreasonable to expect might exist.

The fact that you hold a different opinion does not make the author's words into propaganda. You must demonstrate that the author's words are (at least) incorrect or purposefully deceptive. You can't do that by saying that abiogenesis seems improbable to you. Abiogenesis may in fact BE improbable without this fact being at odds with the author's comments - at least as far as you have demonstrated.

Jerry Smith · #20 21st June 2002, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
Dirt is creation.

Funny how saying things are so doesn't make them true.

Using fairly standard definitions helps. Macroevolution is change at the level of species, e.g. speciation. This a standard definition. It isn't the one I put in my FAQ to discuss the issue here, because I am aware that most of the people here reject only the concept from macroevolution that evolution can bring about large phenotypic changes. I used a non-standard definition because it was common practice here. The author of the FAQ randman is dissecting should not feel compelled to follow my lead - especially since he wrote before I did.

In the first place, there are a number of different definitions of speciation. In the second place, nobody has ever demonstrated that the speciation to which you are no doubt referring (reproductive isolation) has led to anything but reproductive isolation, let alone macroevolution of the type that would eventually produce a kangaroo out of a bacteria.

Of course not. It can only be demonstrated that this kind of macroevolution can produce a kangaroo from some very similar marsupial mammal. And that from one similar to it, and that, from one similar to it...skipping a few thousand events...from a primitive marsupial...from a reptile-like mammal...from a mammal-like reptile...amphibian...fish...invertebrate...primitive invertebrate...multicellular organism... colony of single cellular organisms... single cellular eukaryote... single cellular prokaryote... most primitive first life.

Having demonstrated that speciation events and the microevolutionary changes associated with them can only bring about these changes, we must look to botany and zoology, genomic studies and biochemical studies, and the fossil record to see what kinds of changes did occur over the long term, knowing already that the mechanism exists and works.

So your objection that no one has proven that speciation events have led to nothing more than reproductive isolation (speciation), and that it cannot account for large phenotypic changes - is just pure semantics.

Why should I be surprised?