Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[Naraoia]

Indeed, but if he insists on asking this question, could one of the local biochemists here (perhaps you Naraoia?)

I'm not one of the local biochemists I'm also not sure I could make sense of an association constant :o. So I'm afraid I'll have to pass that up.

 

[Naraoia]

I just wish I had access to the article instead of the abstract.

Vene, I think this is an open access article. I could download the full text no problem without being on the university network or using my off-campus login.

Thanks for the ref, by the way.

(See, True Blue? Open access. Even you can read it.)

 

[Vene]

Vene, I think this is an open access article. I could download the full text no problem without being on the university network or using my off-campus login.

Thanks for the ref, by the way.

(See, True Blue? Open access. Even you can read it.)

Then maybe I'm just incompetent.

Yep, that's it. I didn't see the full text link. Thanks.

 

[Naraoia]

A lot of Creationists have objected to Stanley's isolation of the newly formed amino acids from the spark...

And he does it again. TB, were you friends with Miller, or what? This is getting really weird.

 

[Nitron]

And he does it again. TB, were you friends with Miller, or what? This is getting really weird.

Just doing the whole Hovind "calling someone by their first name to undermine their arguments" thing.

 

[Naraoia]

never mind

 

[True_Blue]

True_Blue, why do you insist on saying things like the above quotes? Really? What do you know about what "science really is"?

What if I told you what "Law" really was? What if I did it after I showed time and again I haven't the slightest idea how any judicial system really works, I just told you what I felt it should work like?

You have proven time and again you think science is a tool to assist you in making more money. That is fine. It is something that many busines people think. I work in an industry that, like most industries, sees R&D as a "necessary evil" that eats into their precious bottom line. So I'm used to business people's scientifically illiterate attitudes.

But what I find amazing is that you make a variety of sweeping claims about chemistry on this thread, and when you are shown you may be in error in your overgeneralization, you simply ignore or move on. What about Temperate's Challenge?

I can't help but notice your "expertise" seems to fall apart when you merely have to use your version of a chemical model to calculate the odds of a reaction and its yield. It is doubly interesting because I suspect you know that Temperate Sea Islander could then show you how right or wrong you were, and as most Creationists, I sense you are afraid of that.

I can understand that. You don't know how science is really done but you do know what it's like to present a point and then be shown your error in your field. But so many Creationists never put those two things together and they never think they will called on the carpet for a claim in a field outside of their own.

Creationists have a "missing cylinder" of sorts. They know what it's like to be error as all people have experienced that, but they seem incapable of realizing that they could be in error in the sciences despite their not having any real science background! It is as if they think they have God's Shield to protect them.

Well, let's see the power of God's Shield. Use your model to show us how effectively it is capable of handling a comparatively simple system:

Use your model to show us what the results are, then we'll have Temperate pull up the actual ratios and we can determine if your model has even simple merit.

Fair enough?

My statement about science was premised on the idea that the government is subsidizing a heck of a lot of evolutionist research, which has a very weak, attenuated relation to commercial value. That huge flow of money is not available to Creationists by virtue of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. If science were funded by the private sector and not by the government, the balance of power between creation and evolution in the US would dramatically shift. If you were on the other side of the debate, you would be as frustrated as I.

Please give me a one or two days to analyze your problem. I may come back to you to ask questions.

 

[Blayz]

That huge flow of money is not available to Creationists by virtue of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.

Is there something in the bible that says "thou shalt be as parochial as possible"? Are you aware Yankland is the only country with this 1st amendment thingy? What about countries (which is to say, all the others) that didn't make the mistake of pushing a constitution beyond infrastructural concerns?

If science were funded by the private sector and not by the government, the balance of power between creation and evolution in the US would dramatically shift.

You are entirely correct. Creationism would disappear altogether. It wouldn't even be allowed to be discussed, since private industry is in the business of making money, and there is not a single case where crevolution has lead to a patentable, money-making idea.

If you were on the other side of the debate, you would be as frustrated as I.

But you are on the other side of the debate. You are a biotech entrepreneur, remember? How is your creationist biotech company doing? Or does your company rely on evilution?

 

[True_Blue]

But you are on the other side of the debate. You are a biotech entrepreneur, remember? How is your creationist biotech company doing? Or does your company rely on evilution?

We're in the process of raising a Series A. If the fundraising effort takes more than a year, the company will be dead. If we do raise the money, we will last 3 years or so, unless we develop usable product, in which case we will last another 16 years.

To answer your other question, we intend to use principles of microevolution to the maximum extent possible, and we rejected a business process effectively based on macroevolution. Of course, the business partners didn't look at the technical and business decision through the lens of origins or evolution, but that's effectively how we structured the business.

 

[Blayz]

To answer your other question, we intend to use principles of microevolution to the maximum extent possible, and we rejected a business process effectively based on macroevolution. Of course, the business partners didn't look at the technical and business decision through the lens of origins or evolution, but that's effectively how we structured the business.

Can give more details on the accepted principle and the rejected one? I ask because, after 25 years working in the field, the only time I see the words micro and macro in front of evolution is when a creationist is speaking/writing.

 

[True_Blue]

Can give more details on the accepted principle and the rejected one? I ask because, after 25 years working in the field, the only time I see the words micro and macro in front of evolution is when a creationist is speaking/writing.

I'm afraid I can't provide such details. Suffice it to say that microbes can be bred for improved traits to a certain point, beyond which it's too risky to expect further improvement, even with hundreds of generations of breeding. I've identified a couple of theoretical limits of evolution for microbes, but I don't yet have a comprehensive theory. I've previously posted on such limits. For example, I believe it's impossible for a microbe to evolve from sulfate-excreting to sulfate-eating, or otherwise reverse the direction of its metabolism. A sulfate-excreting microbe can improve its tolerance, but run its metabolism in reverse through natural selection.

 

[Blayz]

I'm afraid I can't provide such details. Suffice it to say that microbes can be bred

Lol. "bred". That's funny.

Can you give the name of your company? surely that wont break your anonymity.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My statement about science was premised on the idea that the government is subsidizing a heck of a lot of evolutionist research, which has a very weak, attenuated relation to commercial value.

I'll let the biologists on this board rip that particular claim to shreds. I don't know if you are aware of it, but in the U.S. there is a huge biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industry that makes lots of money, underlain by biology which is, in turn, underlain by evolution.

That huge flow of money is not available to Creationists by virtue of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.

Did you catch yourself on that one? The establishment clause indicates that even you know it's religion. Religion has no role in science.

If science were funded by the private sector and not by the government, the balance of power between creation and evolution in the US would dramatically shift.

No it wouldn't. If it shifted it would require that Creationists finally produce some science of value, and we all know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

You see, Creation Scientists and their supporters appear to be intellectually lazy. Most of the creationist supporters couldn't be bothered to learn any science, and the creation scientists are usually pretty sloppy in their science. That's because they aren't actually interested in doing science, but interested only in generating enough doubt that their "pet unfounded hypothesis" will be given equal time.

That's all creation science is about: doubt for doubt's sake. And that's what is the most intellectually bankrupt aspect of it.

Creation Scientists do sloppy science, if they do science at all, and when they are faced with resistance to their slop they whine, as the creationists on this board do. They don't know how science works or how scientific theories are forged in this field.

If you find a creationist scientist they are usually outside of the appropriate fields that bear on origins or evolution.

If you were on the other side of the debate, you would be as frustrated as I.

If I were on the other side of the debate I would indeed be frustrated but largely because I'd be ignorant of the science, proud of my ignorance, and unwilling to learn. That is a recipe for frustration.

Please give me a one or two days to analyze your problem. I may come back to you to ask questions.

You've had several days to "analyze" the problem, True, we all know you aren't going to answer it. You aren't going to apply your "simple" system to figure it out.

It's nothing against you personally, we've all seen it a hundred times with Creationists. They talk a big game, but when the rubber meets the road they run away into the weeds. No offense, and I will gladly eat my hat if you prove me incorrect. But I am willing to bet that you won't rise above the usual Creationist model.

Please prove me wrong. I'd love to see it.

 

[Vene]

My statement about science was premised on the idea that the government is subsidizing a heck of a lot of evolutionist research, which has a very weak, attenuated relation to commercial value.

As Thaum said, pharmaceutical companies use evolution-based techniques. Biomedical companies use evolution-based research. And here's an example. If common descent wasn't true there would be absolutely no reason to pursue this line of research. Not to mention how pointless it would be to test new medicine on animals before moving on to human volunteers.

And creationists have no problem with money. Look at the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. And yet, no research is coming out of either of them. How about the Institute for Creation Research?

By the way, I find it funny you bring up microevolution, considering that when evolution was first proposed creationists even denied microevolution. Your group is (slowly) accepting evolutionary premises. I wonder if in a few decades creationists are going to claim that life except for humans evolved, but that we were specially created.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If common descent wasn't true there would be absolutely no reason to pursue this line of research. Not to mention how pointless it would be to test new medicine on animals before moving on to human volunteers.

Actually I bet the evil-lutionists just like to torment unrelated animals. They are so incredibly evil that they know there is no relationship between animal "kinds" but it's just so much evil fun to test drugs out on unsuspecting animals. Bwaahahahahaha. Ahem. Ha.

By the way, I find it funny you bring up microevolution, considering that when evolution was first proposed creationists even denied microevolution.

Absolute truth should always be "movable" when needed to get grant funding. That money is just so sweeeet!

Your group is (slowly) accepting evolutionary premises.
I wonder if in a few decades creationists are going to claim that life except for humans evolved, but that we were specially created.

I think you can bank on that prediction.

 

[True_Blue]

True_Blue, why do you insist on saying things like the above quotes? Really? What do you know about what "science really is"?

What if I told you what "Law" really was? What if I did it after I showed time and again I haven't the slightest idea how any judicial system really works, I just told you what I felt it should work like?

You have proven time and again you think science is a tool to assist you in making more money. That is fine. It is something that many busines people think. I work in an industry that, like most industries, sees R&D as a "necessary evil" that eats into their precious bottom line. So I'm used to business people's scientifically illiterate attitudes.

But what I find amazing is that you make a variety of sweeping claims about chemistry on this thread, and when you are shown you may be in error in your overgeneralization, you simply ignore or move on. What about Temperate's Challenge?

I can't help but notice your "expertise" seems to fall apart when you merely have to use your version of a chemical model to calculate the odds of a reaction and its yield. It is doubly interesting because I suspect you know that Temperate Sea Islander could then show you how right or wrong you were, and as most Creationists, I sense you are afraid of that.

I can understand that. You don't know how science is really done but you do know what it's like to present a point and then be shown your error in your field. But so many Creationists never put those two things together and they never think they will called on the carpet for a claim in a field outside of their own.

Creationists have a "missing cylinder" of sorts. They know what it's like to be error as all people have experienced that, but they seem incapable of realizing that they could be in error in the sciences despite their not having any real science background! It is as if they think they have God's Shield to protect them.

Well, let's see the power of God's Shield. Use your model to show us how effectively it is capable of handling a comparatively simple system:

Use your model to show us what the results are, then we'll have Temperate pull up the actual ratios and we can determine if your model has even simple merit.

Fair enough?

Thaumatury, now that I've had some time to look at your question, there's something odd about it. I have several questions for you: Is this reaction a necessary condition for abiogenesis? If so, which of the resulting molecules, when created, is necessary for the synthesis of a living organism? Are you assuming an aqueous solution? When nitric acid and sulfuric acid are reacted (something odd about such an attempt--it doesn't seem like a particularly efficient kind of a reaction), what is the proportion of the products? If the one necessary for life is formed in 60% proportion, then in that particular stage, the probability of that particular step is 60% under simplistic assumptions.

But for some reason, I think you and TemperateSeaIsland are somehow misapprehending something. TemperateSeaIsland seems to be conflating a method of analysis with an algorithm to predict the products of reactions. That's just bizarre to me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumatury, now that I've had some time to look at your question

Please be clear, it isn't "my" question it was posted originally by Temperate Sea Islander.

, there's something odd about it. I have several questions for you: Is this reaction a necessary condition for abiogenesis?

What possible reason would that matter?

If so, which of the resulting molecules, when created, is necessary for the synthesis of a living organism?

You aren't setting yourself up for an "out" on this one are you? I hope not.

Are you assuming an aqueous solution?

I think you'll have to ask Temperate Sea Islander for explicit details on the step-wise reaction.

(EDITTED TO ADD: I have forwarded an example lab from a university organic chemistry class that describes the reaction directly to True_Blue to avoid posting the information in a public forum, even though this information is freely available in most chemistry classes, this is a serious reaction and the reactants and products can be quite dangerous.)

When nitric acid and sulfuric acid are reacted (something odd about such an attempt--it doesn't seem like a particularly efficient kind of a reaction)

Where do you get this idea? Indeed if I am not very much mistaken the stronger acid is needed to protonate the weaker, so I don't know why you'd make this claim in regards to this particular reaction.

, what is the proportion of the products?

That's what YOU are supposed to provide. It's kinda the whole point of the exercise. It is a standard type of exercise in intro organic chemistry classes. You are provided with reactants and several products which form from the competiting reactions. Note the differences in these three products, the ONLY DIFFERENCE is where the NO2 attaches to the ring. The different positions are "ortho", "meta", and "para".

The key here is that you can check if your "random processes" technique when applied to this reaction.

If the one necessary for life is formed in 60% proportion, then in that particular stage, the probability of that particular step is 60% under simplistic assumptions.

All you have to do is show us

But for some reason, I think you and TemperateSeaIsland are somehow misapprehending something.

Look, True, if your system can't do this, it isn't worth much when applied to a much more complex system like biogenesis. This should be a piece o' cake for your patented "random chemistry system" approach.

TemperateSeaIsland seems to be conflating a method of analysis with an algorithm to predict the products of reactions. That's just bizarre to me.

This is hardly a "method of analysis", this is a simple, known reaction in organic chemistry that results in a variety of products and you have to use your bizarre "pure random chemistry skills" to assess how much of each final product is the result.

I am pretty sure you know this isn't going to be pretty for your "pure random system" calculations, so you are avoiding it. But further I find it quite telling that you have no background information on this, given the reaction you could easily have googled it and found the answer in a couple hits.

The only thing then would be to try to figure out how your "pure random system" would possibly have come up with that mix of products in those proportions.

That is just "bizarre".

(I know what you are attempting to do here and really it's OK. No one here actually expects you to know the chemistry, let alone get this right using your "random processes" technique, but you don't have to dance around it so much.)

 

[mpok1519]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things.

Alot of scientists think the first microorganisms on earth came from meteors containing microbes suspended in cryogenic animation.

Its very possible for microbes to survive in ice and then become reanimated.

 

[Blayz]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things.

Most scientists think the first microorganisms on earth came from meteors containing microbes suspended in cryogenic animation.

Its very possible for microbes to survive in ice and then become reanimated.

Most????

Please provide some evidence.

 

[mpok1519]

alot?