Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If there is something, why aren't there links?As Science Digest reported:
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.
If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?
just to be clear I am not that guy I quoted I was just quoting him I am not him there is nothing wrong with him and nothing wrong with me but I I'm not himI didn't take it out of context in the slightest. Your full post #327 consisted of what I responded to, and no more than that. Might have been taken a little bit out of the context of the conversation you were having, perhaps, but I didn't remove any content.
You know those little blue arrows pointing up next to the quoted person's username in a post? If you click them, it brings you back to the post that person is quoting from. If you click the one in my previous post, you'll be instantly taken to yours.
In the context of abiogenesis, natural selection applies about the same as it does on actual living organisms, just with molecules and collections thereof.
I only see creationists regularly do that. However, your suggestion that there was "nothing to select for" prior to a living cell is incorrect. Protocells with a metabolism so basic and passive that we could debate as to whether or not it counts, which consist of lipid bubbles with some proteins and nucleic acids in them, are highly variable, and the ones best at replicating do dominate abiogenesis experimental environments over ones bad at replicating. Heck, from the get go, there is stuff to select for.
This might shed some light...If there is something, why aren't there links?
Yes, right, because ID is not creationism... OK.. Got it..Well I'm not a creationist but thanks for the compliment
As Science Digest reported:
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.
If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?
Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
As Science Digest reported:
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.
If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?
Sounds like you're experiencing confirmation bias and wishful thinking; they often go together - it's something to watch out for.I'm just curious then why are there literally hundreds of scientists that a jumping ship? Why are they bailing. Why are people like me waking up to evolutionary nonsense and switching to ID? Its weird.
Back on the old Beliefnet we use to run a challenge periodically to see if creationists could come up with a scientist who rejected evolution on the evidence before being converted to fundamentalist Evangelicalism. Never a one could be found.Sounds like you're experiencing confirmation bias and wishful thinking; they often go together - it's something to watch out for.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
That article is 39 years old, yet evolutionary biology is bigger and busier than ever.As Science Digest reported:
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.
If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?
Ah, yes - creationist Mr. Ed Peltzer, #315 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
As Science Digest reported:
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.
Oh, I see. You should make that clear in your posts from here on out, by, at a minimum, putting quotation marks around statements that are quotes and not statements originating from you.just to be clear I am not that guy I quoted I was just quoting him I am not him there is nothing wrong with him and nothing wrong with me but I I'm not him
The universe rarely conforms to the categorical boxes we make for it, so ambiguity as to whether or not something is a metabolism in a protocell is hardly unexpected or a problem. There is a selective exchange between molecules in the environment and within the protocell, it is just that it is a function of the properties of lipid bubbles rather than a process controlled by protocell mediated mechanisms, which is why I said it is debatable whether or not that counts as a metabolism. Most sources list that as a very basic metabolism.Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.
Then set up an abiogenesis experiment. As a chemist, you have the resources available to you to accomplish it.As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life.
-_- protocells which have replicating genetic material and passively divide isn't much to you? Because that's a lot more than what people were expecting within such a short time period. Most people assumed that abiogenesis was a process that took an immense amount of time, but the fact that experimental results got that far may suggest otherwise. You should look into the work of Jack Szostak on this stuff, it's really amazing.Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much.
-_- what do you mean by synthetic reactions? Most molecules necessary for living cells form naturally in environments that allow for it. Heck, to this day there is an abundance of amino acids unrelated to living cells in the environment.Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far.
Abiogenesis experiments are designed as simulations of the ancient Earth environment. It would be pointless for us to use conditions unlikely to represent that of the ancient Earth because that wouldn't represent a likely path that abiogenesis could take on our planet. It'd also be extremely directionless, giving it a higher chance of failure.It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get.
Are you actually a chemist? If so, then tell me, is this molecule chiral?Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.
-_- there is nothing "Darwinian" about abiogenesis. The closest he came to even being involved is a comment he made about a hypothetical scenario where life arises from water, but he never investigated or hypothesized anything to do with abiogenesis.And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Is your argument seriously just stolen from this guy? You couldn't even be bothered to reword it? If you are just going to post the arguments of others, you might as well just post links to them. And no, I am not editing my response because of this; if you are willing to present this argument, you better be prepared to defend it. Including the chirality question; if you don't know anything about chemistry, how would you be able to tell if this guy's arguments are legitimate or not?Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Really because you have some key words in there. Can you give an example.
Hey I'm just going on what I originally told you and your response. You can not get natural selection unless you have something to select from.
I thought it was about figuring out how life got here?
Remember I mentioned atheists as well. Remember its also atheists that do not trust atheists and for good reason. If your morals are relative then well ... lets just say I'll side with the atheists that don't trust atheists lol.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?