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.
By the way, I note that the title of the piece is...
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Yet, based on all the supremely educated irrefutable experts who participate on this forum, I would have expected talkorigins to respond to "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." with "You're talking about abiogenesis, which has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution!"
Apparently articles posted on talkorigins are written by uneducated amateurs who don't know any better. All the more reason to ignore them.
__________________ If you lived here you'd be home by now.
I think he's asking about the "approximate". Which means it forms molecules approximately like it. You know, ranging from similiar to carbon (snicker) copies...
Originally posted by npetreley By the way, I note that the title of the piece is...
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Yet, based on all the supremely educated irrefutable experts who participate on this forum, I would have expected talkorigins to respond to "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance." with "You're talking about abiogenesis, which has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution!"
Apparently articles posted on talkorigins are written by uneducated amateurs who don't know any better. All the more reason to ignore them.
Yeah, its NEVER ok to make a side note that refutes a claim that is basically irrelevant. Especially when you follow it up with the next paragraph explaining why the point was irrelevant!
"What properties? Name the properties they are claiming that have never been observed."
The fact rocks can spontaneously form is not evidence that life can spontaneously form no matter how much you and Talkorigins state that it is. We observe the "spontanously" forming into more complex molecules al the time, and never do we see it form into life-forms. That just has not been observed, not even close.
"Means it has chemical properties that cause it to catalyze the formation of another one approximately like it."
OK, Jerry, then we have self-replicating molecules happening all the time. The article then states quite forcefully.
"Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."
Please show where natural selection works among rocks. I mean it clearly states that once a molecule forms, "natural selection WILL GUIDE THE FORMATION OF EVER MORE EFFECIENT REPLICATORS."
Have we ever seen chemical properties evolve efficient chemical properties? Personally, I can't believe you don't see this. Do I have to spell it out to you?
Rocks form. They are thus self-replicating. They don't develop more efficient means of self-replicating. The properties of such chemicals are fixed. They are not subject to natural selection. They are not alive.
The fact rocks can spontaneously form is not evidence that life can spontaneously form no matter how much you and Talkorigins state that it is.
I didn't notice TO claiming that. I noticed it talking about self-replicating molecules..
We observe the "spontanously" forming into more complex molecules al the time, and never do we see it form into life-forms. That just has not been observed, not even close.
I complexity couldn't form under the 2nd Law? Or was that someone else....
It only took a billion years. And of course, it required large amounts of the same chemicals that life looks on as "food".
Linear Mode
