Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[DogmaHunter]

Every generation, you have two chances, that the next generation will be the same as the current, or they will be worse off genetically.

Tibetans, who are better off, disagree.
Bacteria, now immune to anti-biotics and thus better off, disagree.
Insects, now immune to pesticides and thus better off, disagree.

They do not get better unless the previous generation had been malnourished or something similar. There is only a downward spiral as I said, toward extinction.

You keep asserting this, but you aren't supporting it.

As I said, I submit that you can't support it. I submit that you only believe this because it is a requirement to believe it in the dogmatic religious doctrine you adhere to. Most likely, some kind of specific interpretation concerning "the fall".

Amirite?

 

[Loudmouth]

Every generation, you have two chances, that the next generation will be the same as the current, or they will be worse off genetically.

You forgot the third option, that they will be better off.

They do not get better unless the previous generation had been malnourished or something similar.

Evidence?

Let's approach this from a different angle. Of the mutations that separate humans and chimps, are none of those mutations beneficial to humans?

There is only a downward spiral as I said, toward extinction.

You can say that the moon is made of green cheese. Stating something doesn't make it true. Where is the evidence to back your claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

Humans are humans, turtles are turtles, etc. Everywhere you look.

Just as we would expect to see if evolution is true.

Tibetans are no more different than anyone else than a white curly haired poodle is from a grey pelted German Shepherd.

Humans, poodles, and german sheperds are all mammals. Their common ancestor was a mammal. Mammals are mammals. According to you, this is what evolution can do. We agree.

What do you see in nature, and what are evolutionists always telling us? 99.9% of all species ever to live have gone extinct.
The rest are fast heading that direction.

And yet the Earth has never ran out of species and has always been full of species. Why do you ignore that fact?

 

[JacksBratt]

You should perhaps first go back and read what the subject of discussion is, before coming in and changing goalposts.

How long have you been on this forum? 4000 + posts and you haven't seen one response leading to another then another and so on. Secondly, the response I made was not to you.

I was responding to a claim that "new genes" don't happen. That mutation only makes things worse etc.

Very good. I would agree. Order to disorder and not the other way around. Evolution would move from organised to disorganization.

Tibetans, and all the other examples I gave, clearly disagree.
I wasn't responding to a claim saying "speciation is impossible" - which I could certainly address. It was just not the point of the post I was replying to.



Actually, that is exactly evolution.

Speciation is nothing but an accumulation of those changes among genetically isolated populations. Which has been observed plenty of times. In the wild and the lab.

Breeding a Golden Retriever with a Border Collie to end up with Gollies is NOT evolution. It is animal husbandry. No YEC would dispute this.

Starting with one single cell "life form" that somehow "evolved" into both plant and animal.......that is Darwin's religion.

Saying we came from chimps or gorillas, which we cannot procreate with..... that is dreaming.

The biggest conspiracy theory ever is the TOE.

 

[pat34lee]

Good job on missing the point.
That point being that they have a unique gene sequence which isn't found in other populations which is beneficial to people living at high altitudes.

This directly contradicts your claim that mutations is all about "degeneration".

Prove that the gene in question was not part of every person's DNA and lost to everyone else through degeneration.

I have no idea why you think extinction is a problem for evolution.

Because degeneration and extinction are the rule, not the exception. Evolution is 100% out of touch with that reality.

 

[pat34lee]

Just as we would expect to see if evolution is true.

Not quite. We would expect to see evolution in action. New things being made in the wild animals and plants. It never happens.

Humans, poodles, and german sheperds are all mammals. Their common ancestor was a mammal. Mammals are mammals. According to you, this is what evolution can do. We agree.

Except there was no common ancestor above the level of kinds of animals. Ancestral dogs, ancestral bears, ancestral cats, etc.

And yet the Earth has never ran out of species and has always been full of species. Why do you ignore that fact?

Of course not. Not yet. But they are dying off at rates never heard of before. Read the following for just this year's major die-offs. There are links to a few previous years at the bottom.
http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/animal-deaths-birds-fish-end-times.html

 

[pat34lee]

You keep asserting this, but you aren't supporting it.

http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol7degeneration.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-die-off-disease-animals-environment-science/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-oc...animal-life-die-offs-california-coast/5451836

Unlike the supposed previous extinctions, there will be no coming back from this one.
http://qz.com/433256/a-mass-extinct...d-the-dinosaurs-is-threatening-animals-today/

 

[JacksBratt]

You claimed that abiogenesis is false because no one has seen it occur.

Where did I say that?

I made a general statement that nobody has seen how life began.

Do you apply the same criteria to your own beliefs? If not, why not? Why the double standard?

We have text, ancient writings which include the Bible, the Book of Enoch, The Book of Jubilee, the Book of Jasher, the writings of Josephus. All written in a time well before Socrates, Plato, Darwin, Einstein or any other great mind. They are raw and pointed in describing the origin and purpose of life. They were written by different people and span different periods of time yet they parallel each other magnificently.

Yes, no one living saw it but early observers told others who wrote it down.

Now you are projecting. We have consistently said that they are different questions, and that we don't need to know how life started in order to determine that it evolved. I don't know how life started, and I will gladly answer the same every time it is asked. I don't ever flee from the question.

See the bold text? If life was created and we were to learn this for a fact, then there would be no need for your "evolve" part.

You see, the TOE chooses to believe that life was NOT created. They have no proof one way or another. But if life was created, there is no need for the TOE.

This is why you have been trained to say " We have consistently said that they are different questions, and that we don't need to know how life started in order to determine that it evolved."

They brain wash you to believe that you "don't need to know" because, if you knew there would be no TOE.

You, on the other hand, claim that abiogenesis has been disproven because no one has ever seen it happen. Do you apply the same criteria to your own beliefs?

I didn't say it has been disprove. Please show me my text as to where I said this. I merely stated that it was not observed.

How many times have you tried to vilify evolution because it is supposedly based on faith?

Due to the fact that no one has or did observe the origin of life, it is all based on faith. To say "well we will just skip over that little unsolvable problem and just go right into what happened after that" is leaving TOE without a foundational starting point.

You have faith in the fact that it started "somehow". Then you have faith that your static fossil record tells your tale the way you deem it to.

Nobody saw the origin of life. Nobody saw anything "evolve". It is a religion based on faith. It is actually the biggest conspiracy theory of all time.

 

[lasthero]

You see, the TOE chooses to believe that life was NOT created. They have no proof one way or another. But if life was created, there is no need for the TOE.

If God created life and let it evolve from there, what, exactly, would be different about the theory?

 

[justlookinla]

If God created life and let it evolve from there, what, exactly, would be different about the theory?

It wouldn't be a meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How long have you been on this forum? 4000 + posts and you haven't seen one response leading to another then another and so on. Secondly, the response I made was not to you.

Then why did you quote MY post??

Very good. I would agree. Order to disorder and not the other way around. Evolution would move from organised to disorganization.

And my argument AGAINST THAT notion was the unique gene sequence that evolved in tibetans, the immunities that evolved in bacteria and insects, etc which is a direct refutation of that nonsense.

Breeding a Golden Retriever with a Border Collie to end up with Gollies is NOT evolution.

Indeed. That rather is breeding through artificial selection processes.
However, the biological mechanisms that turned wolves into golder retrievers, are exactly the mechanisms of evolution.

The only difference is natural selection instead of artificial selection.

Saying we came from chimps or gorillas, which we cannot procreate with..... that is dreaming.

No, that's genetic fact.

The biggest conspiracy theory ever is the TOE.

Don't forget your tinfoil head.

 

[DogmaHunter]

http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol7degeneration.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-die-off-disease-animals-environment-science/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-oc...animal-life-die-offs-california-coast/5451836

Unlike the supposed previous extinctions, there will be no coming back from this one.
http://qz.com/433256/a-mass-extinct...d-the-dinosaurs-is-threatening-animals-today/

Can you please summarize in your own words wich points of these articles make your case?

Posting bare links is not exactly productive (not to mention, against the forum rules).

 

[DogmaHunter]

It wouldn't be a meaningless, mindless, purposeless and directionless creation.

Please explain how it wouldn't be so?

 

[SkyWriting]

A habitable planet has been discovered a mere 1400 light years away. Considering our tiny galaxy spans a 100,000 light years but still has a hundred billion stars this indicates a dramatic increase in the likely number of habitable planets. Our galaxy may be full of them. If life originates by chance, the more habitable planets the greater the odds that life will originate. You guys believing in a 6 day creation event better start rethinking your positions.

What advantage does life have over non-life?
Why would it happen?
What benefit is life to a rock?
How does a rock need life?
What processes point to life forming?
What is the chemical edvantage?
What is the thermal advantage?
What is the density advantage?
What chemical process encourages life over non-life?
How does life produce a benefit over non-living material?
If our solar system had one billion earth like planets in the same orbit, why would life developed on any of them?
What would cause it to happen?
As long as you happen to be on this planet, all these questions should have easy answers.

 

[justlookinla]

Please explain how it wouldn't be so?

If someone is a creator of something, there is preconceived thought as to the goal of that person's creation. That would eliminate "meaningless" and "mindless" and "purposeless".

 

[DogmaHunter]

If someone is a creator of something, there is preconceived thought as to the goal of that person's creation. That would eliminate "meaningless" and "mindless" and "purposeless".

That would only apply to the creation of the first living thing.
But we are talking about the process that follows: evolution of living things.

Evolution theory does not address how first life came into existance.
To evolution, it literally doesn't matter how first life came into existance.

Evolution is a process that existing life is subject to.

The question is: how would evolution theory change, specifically, if the creation of life happened naturally versus artificially?

The point you made in the above quote applies to the act of creating that first living thing. But the question isn't about the emergence of first life. The question is about the process that follows that emergence.
The question is about the process that existing living things are subject to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What advantage does life have over non-life?

That's a very strange question.
To me, that sounds like "what advantage does ice have over liquid water?".

It sounds pretty non-sensical. Perhaps you should qualify what you mean, because I literally have no clue what you are asking about.

Why would it happen?

If it happens naturally, the "why" would be answered with the chemical reactions that turns "non-living" things into "living" things.

What benefit is life to a rock?
How does a rock need life?

More non-sensical questions.

What processes point to life forming?

For example, processes that result in the building blocks of life forming naturally - building blocks that were previously believed to be "to complex" to form naturally. These days, we even find these organic compounds in space rocks.

What is the chemical edvantage?
What is the thermal advantage?
What is the density advantage?
What chemical process encourages life over non-life?
How does life produce a benefit over non-living material?

More non-sensical questions.
What is the taste of "blue"?

If our solar system had one billion earth like planets in the same orbit, why would life developed on any of them?
What would cause it to happen?

The search for the origins of life is ongoing. If someone can answer these questions, it would mean that this person solved the puzzle.

As long as you happen to be on this planet, all these questions should have easy answers.

Non-sensical questions have no answers.

 

[justlookinla]

That would only apply to the creation of the first living thing.
But we are talking about the process that follows: evolution of living things.

It would still require the living thing to not be a mindless, meaningless and purposeless creation. The first living thing would be created with certain features and abilities.

Evolution theory does not address how first life came into existance.
To evolution, it literally doesn't matter how first life came into existance.

I disagree. The 'how' completely shapes one's worldview.

Evolution is a process that existing life is subject to.

Ok.

The question is: how would evolution theory change, specifically, if the creation of life happened naturally versus artificially?

The worldview is changed according to how humanity was created. By accident or with purpose.

The point you made in the above quote applies to the act of creating that first living thing. But the question isn't about the emergence of first life. The question is about the process that follows that emergence.
The question is about the process that existing living things are subject to.

No, the question is the creation of the first living thing and if humanity is the product of a plan or chance.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a very strange question.
To me, that sounds like "what advantage does ice have over liquid water?".

Ice forms because ......as the temperature drops the molecules form bonds and crystalize.
Life forms because........?

 

[SkyWriting]

Non-sensical questions have no answers.

No problem.

What is the chemical edvantage?
What is the thermal advantage?
What is the density advantage?
What chemical process encourages life over non-life?
How does life produce a benefit over non-living material?

What is the chemical reason life formed?
What is the thermal reason life formed?
What is the density reason?
What chemical process encourages life over non-life?
How does life produce a chemical benefit over non-living material?
Etc.

Unless your language is Orange, these are serious questions thinking people want answered.