Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
"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."
Jerry, I suggest your read this again. It's a waste of time if you don't see this as BS. Basically, he uses lanquage such as "are sure to form spontaneously" to suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a process that has never been observed, nor recreated, and is filled with serious problems to be well-nigh "sure" and inevitable.
This is the problem debating you guys. You don't play honest and fair. It is a waste of time. It's like asking Bill Clinton if he had sex with Monica, and he states it depends on what "is" is, or some other BS. Anyone with a brain can see the truth. Quit playing semantic games.
Talkorigins is filled with misleading lanquage and assertions, such as claiming thousands of transitional forms, and yet why go further. Micro-evolution is not macro-evolution, and that is a fact. Calling it that is a semantic ploy, and does nothing to refute critics's assertions. Moreover, in this context, critics have stated macro-evolution has not been observed. To turn that around and define micro-evolution, which includes just about everything in reproduction, as observation of macro-evolution is proof positive the site is bogus. No more is needed.
If you can't see that Jerry, there is really no use in talking to you anymore.
Jerry, I suggest your read this again. It's a waste of time if you don't see this as BS. Basically, he uses lanquage such as "are sure to form spontaneously" to suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a process that has never been observed, nor recreated, and is filled with serious problems to be well-nigh "sure" and inevitable.
Are you kidding? Large carbon-based molecules do form spontaneously. All you need is a test-tube and some basic elements to show that.
It's certainly been recreated and observed. Take a biochemistry class, randman.
What, are you going to claim self-replicationg molecules don't exist next?
"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."
Is this part right or wrong?
"Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."
Is this part right are wrong?
When the statements are factual, it is hard to claim they are propaganda without first doing a good job of assessing their accuracy, no?
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
"Are you kidding? Large carbon-based molecules do form spontaneously. All you need is a test-tube and some basic elements to show that."
No kidding, but read the rest. Inserting this phrase there is an attempt to try and suggest critics are not aware of this, and that the whole thing can happen in a similarly easy manner. It's the same logic as the micro-evolution equalling macro-evolution. State the obvious that chemicals do have properties and then infer because they do have intrinsinc observable properties, that somehow these properties also include things that have never been observed and are wrought with serious difficulties even in theory. The whole thing is just slick deception.
This piece rivals Slick Willy in its word parsing. The idea is to create an impression that there are no problems with abiogensis when the exact opposite is the case, and the proof of that is the stated intention of these paragraphs. The idea is to refute criticism of abiogenesis, but nowhere does it deal with the reality that there are indeed major problems with abiogenesis. About the only thing that has any validity, though it is wrong too, is the weasel sentence at the end stating it doesn't matter anyway in terms of evolution after the first life-form, but if that is the case, why struggle so hard to create a misimpression.
Btw, I am frankly surprised you didn't get my point. I don't have time to spell out the obvious, Jerry. I already left the site, and only came back due to your e-mail, but I see no attempt on your part to try to assess honesty the differences here in viewpoint.
"Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."
Is this part right are wrong? "
The whole thing is basically wrong. First, the approximate self-replicating is just a vague nothing statement, and secondly, the natural selection part is total BS since there wouldn't even be competition. Where is the self-replicating life form, and whence does it come from?
The paragraph is an attempt to imply the intrinsinc characteristics of chemicals is such as to form into life forms, and that is the propaganda. The fact more complex molecules can form spontaneously is not evidence that they can form into life forms. Noone has ever seen that happen, period! The nature of rocks and chemicals is not such that these properties from self-replicating life forms as the article is stating.
"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."
In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means...we now interrupt your regularly scheduled science program to bring you a story conceived in fantasy.
The idea is to create an impression that there are no problems with abiogensis when the exact opposite is the case, and the proof of that is the stated intention of these paragraphs. The idea is to refute criticism of abiogenesis, but nowhere does it deal with the reality that there are indeed major problems with abiogenesis.
No, the point (I believe) is to answer the objection about the beginning of life that this section on the misconceptions about evolution FAQ specifically lists: the beginning of life is too "improbable".
I think, possibly you didn't see where TO correctly characterized abiogenesis as problematic was simply that you forgot to look at their abiogenesis FAQ.
The problem of abiogenesis is the problem of self-organization of organic self-replicators.
We don't have good historical clues regarding what the first self-replicators were. Unlike single and multicellular life forms, they left no imprint of their passing.
We assume that a transition occurred between the first self-replicators and the RNA world. This assumption is not necessarily valid
Many of these sub-questions cannot be adequately answered as of yet.
...
Slick Willy indeed.
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
"Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating"
In other words, why would this happen, and what does approximate self-replicating mean? Is light self-replicating?
The jump here from the way rocks form basically to the creation of life forms that can reproduce is stated as if the qualities of chemicals have an innate ability to produce life forms spontaneously when that is speculation that really is silly. If this were the case, little life forms would be spontaneoulsy generating all the time.
State the obvious that chemicals do have properties and then infer because they do have intrinsinc observable properties, that somehow these properties also include things that have never been observed and are wrought with serious difficulties even in theory
What properties? Name the properties they are claiming that have never been observed.
Please.
First, the approximate self-replicating is just a vague nothing statement, and secondly, the natural selection part is total BS since there wouldn't even be competition.
No competition? Poppycock. Competition for resources, quite obviously. The quickest and most efficient replicator makes the most copies.
Where is the self-replicating [b]life form[b/], and whence does it come from?
Slick move, Clinton. But we're talking self replicating molecules here, not life forms.
Naughty boy.
In other words, why would this happen, and what does approximate self-replicating mean? Is light self-replicating?
Why would what happen? Molecules form that were approximately self-replicating? Chemistry. It happens, you know.
Approximately self-replicating means what it sounds like. It makes more molecules that are more or less copies of itself.
It doesn't have to make exact copies. Just more big molecules, some of which will also be self-replicating.
Would you like a nice resource on self-replicating molecules and how they work? Actual ones observed by biochemists and chemists?
The jump here from the way rocks form basically to the creation of life forms that can reproduce is stated as if the qualities of chemicals have an innate ability to produce life forms spontaneously when that is speculation that really is silly. If this were the case, little life forms would be spontaneoulsy generating all the time.
In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means...we now interrupt your regularly scheduled science program to bring you a story conceived in fantasy.
Linear Mode
