Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer

[BobRyan]

Regardless of whether you accept it or not is besides the point. It's a question of whether you can accurately represent it.

You are asking me to represent something that does not exist?
I am sticking with start point and end-point -- the description of the facts as to how Creationists get from A to B I am happy to describe

 

[BobRyan]

Regardless of whether you accept it or not is besides the point. It's a question of whether you can accurately represent it.

Or whether I refuse to engage in the speculation and just stick with start and end points letting the atheists fill in the details?

Which (for some odd reason) some would like to "spin" as "gross misrepresentation" even with no description of it at all given

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What else did you have? (hint - no "evolution fertilizer" as the title of the thread states)

Stanley Miller: "“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones."

You said that I claimed that life started from barren lifeless rocks.
Either support that claim that you made about me, or admit that you are lying.

And all you are showing, once again, is that you understand nothing of the thing that you are railing against.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why is that creationists and the people who are generally anti-science always go with the idea that the words of one scientist, no matter when they are from, are taken as the Gospel?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Stanley Miller: "“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need."

So, here we apparently have Miller himself saying only "basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere" are needed - no mention of "lifeless rock".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's worth noting the "lifeless rock" quote comes from an interview question, not Stanley Miller himself.

That makes sense - he's quoted (by BobRyan himself) as saying all that's needed is, "basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's worth pointing out that panspermia (life arriving from elsewhere in the universe) is a perfectly valid hypothesis - we already know that life can survive a considerable time exposed in space, and that life can also be found deep inside rocks, so it's conceivable that simple extraterrestrial life could have survived in a meteorite to seed evolution on Earth.

It's not a mainstream hypothesis because the timescale involved in travel from another star system would almost certainly be far too long for DNA or RNA to survive intact. It would be far more likely to survive a trip from Mars on one of the many meteorites that have come over, but that still begs the question of how it arose in the first place.

But there is a mainstream hypothesis involving the deposition of complex organics (the 'building blocks' of life) from space, where they (and water) appear in abundance. But, AIUI, these complex organics could also have been generated on Earth, so such material from space would only be significant when falling in areas where conditions were not suitable for the native assembly of complex organics.

 

[pitabread]

prove it - since even you admit I have not described any process.

I didn't say you haven't described any process. Rather, I said you are misrepresenting the process of abiogenesis/evolution.

This goes back to what you wrote in post #142:

A. Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"

In this context, you are describing what you think atheists are claiming insofar as the process of abiogenesis/evolution. My contention is this is a strawman representation. The actual process of abiogenesis involves various compounds, including organic compounds, which no one would accurately characterize as solely being "rocks". Likewise, the subsequent process of evolution leading to modern horses would involve primarily biological organisms, again, not "rocks".

That you seem to be deriving your characterization from a metaphorical description of Earth in an interview question is baffling.

(Not to mention, this has still has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.)

 

[pitabread]

"lifeless rock"

no joke. Is this what you were having a hard time with?

What I'm having a hard time with is how you took a metaphorical description of Earth from an interview question and somehow spun that into the phrase, 'Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"'.

 

[pitabread]

Why is that creationists and the people who are generally anti-science always go with the idea that the words of one scientist, no matter when they are from, are taken as the Gospel?

There is definitely a fundamental difference in mindset. Creationists seem to assume that their dogmatic approach to Biblical literalism is mirrored by scientists and science-supporters in the approach to science.

 

[loveofourlord]

I did. It still in no way supports your representation that abiogenesis/evolution involves "rocks [doing] whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time".

The only reference to a "rock" in that entire discussion is from an interviewer's question, not even Stanley Miller. And the context is quite clear it's simply a reference to the planet (Earth) itself. It's not referring to literal rocks in the context of abiogenesis.

It's also odd that you're quoting an interview from 25 years ago and seem to be putting full stock of your arguments/characterizations in it.

I asked you before and I'll you again, what have you actually read in terms of modern abiogenesis research? Have you read anything outside of the Urey-Miller experiment and/or random interviews on the same?

closest to rocks I've seen is the idea that clay/mud could have been used as a way for early chemicles and such that formed life to form ontop of as it would provide a place that was closest I ever saw.

 

[loveofourlord]

It's worth pointing out that panspermia (life arriving from elsewhere in the universe) is a perfectly valid hypothesis - we already know that life can survive a considerable time exposed in space, and that life can also be found deep inside rocks, so it's conceivable that simple extraterrestrial life could have survived in a meteorite to seed evolution on Earth.

It's not a mainstream hypothesis because the timescale involved in travel from another star system would almost certainly be far too long for DNA or RNA to survive intact. It would be far more likely to survive a trip from Mars on one of the many meteorites that have come over, but that still begs the question of how it arose in the first place.

But there is a mainstream hypothesis involving the deposition of complex organics (the 'building blocks' of life) from space, where they (and water) appear in abundance. But, AIUI, these complex organics could also have been generated on Earth, so such material from space would only be significant when falling in areas where conditions were not suitable for the native assembly of complex organics.

heck it's possible that theia or what eve formed the moon might have ejected early life onto other planets in the solar system or simular impacts that WE seeded life in our solar system if we ever fin any out thre.
Of course this just pushes back the question of Abiogenesis a bit further back.

 

[SelfSim]

no such process exists - it is just a story with a lot of "speculation".

I'll give you one that 'exists' (from my Origin of Life - Hot Springs thread):

Latest hypothesis on life’s origins (abiogenesis), which wraps up current research from multiple parallel streams, here:
The Hot Spring Hypothesis for an Origin of Life

Main hypothesis points, (roughly quoted and summarised from the Abstract), are:

1. origin of life on land in which fluctuating volcanic hot spring pools play a central role;
2. based on experimental evidence that lipid-encapsulated polymers can be synthesized by cycles of hydration and dehydration to form protocells;
3. protocells cycling through wet, dry, and moist phases will subject polymers to combinatorial selection and draw structural and catalytic functions out of initially random sequences, including structural stabilization, pore formation, and primitive metabolic activity;
4. proposes that protocells aggregating into a hydrogel in the intermediate moist phase of wet-dry cycles represent a primitive progenote system. Progenote populations can undergo selection and distribution, construct niches in new environments, and enable a sharing network effect that can collectively evolve them into the first microbial communities;
5. biogenesis begins with simple protocell aggregates, through the transitional form of the progenote, to robust microbial mats that leave the fossil imprints of stromatolites so representative in the rock record;
6. proposes future testing of the hypothesis;
7. compares the oceanic vent with land-based pool scenarios for an origin of life and explores implications for subsequent evolution to multicellular life such as plants;
8. concludes by utilizing the hypothesis to posit where life might also have emerged in habitats such as Mars or Saturn's moon Enceladus;

Note: Study dies not conclude that Earth must have given birth to life in exactly the way they describe .. moreso that life could have arisen on Earth via this path, and could also arise on other worlds in a similar way, assuming Hadean-like starting conditions.

 

[BobRyan]

Now if you want to correct this perception, then by all means provide a proper description of the abiogenesis/evolution process

no such process exists - it is just a story with a lot of "speculation".

Stanley Miller: "“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones."

I'll give you one that 'exists' (from my Origin of Life - Hot Springs thread):

1. I am happy to admit that a lot of stories do exist.
2. Stanley Miller is the one asking for someone to actually name the element not available on earth that evolution "needs" to add to the "lifeless rock" state in order to occur.

If your argument is that "hot springs" got their element from outer space, I would be interested.

--proposes that protocells aggregating into a hydrogel in the intermediate moist phase of wet-dry cycles represent a primitive progenote system. Progenote populations can undergo selection and distribution, construct niches in new environments, and enable a sharing network effect that can collectively evolve them into the first microbial communities;
...

proposes future testing of the hypothesis;

I agree with that part. It is a proposal that needs more testing.

 

[SelfSim]

I agree with that part

Then it is not a 'story' then .. So you can now cease using that term and use the term you just agreed with, ie: its 'an hypothesis'.

PS: The hypothesis also 'exists' .. I just posted it .. so there's your objective evidence for its existence - right there.

 

[pitabread]

no such process exists - it is just a story with a lot of "speculation".

Stanley Miller: "“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones."

You're just deflecting from the point of my post. Which is that you said: "rocks [doing] whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time", which is a gross misrepresentation of the process of abiogenesis/evolution.

Your continued reference to that Miller interview isn't supporting you here, since the "lifeless rock" bit didn't even come from Miller. It was the interviewer that said that. It's also worth noting that Miller didn't explicitly agree with that premise (he actually says, "We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago.")

At any rate, you can keep repeating yourself, but you don't appear to be acknowledging or addressing your very own words.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Stanley Miller: "“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones."

They may not have said which compounds in Miller's time, but we now know the composition of a large number of extraterrestrial organic compounds that could come from space and could be used in abiogenesis.

The consensus seems to be that they're not essential, they could be made on Earth, but the steady arrival of meteorites containing them would guarantee their ubiquity on Earth. IOW, the origin of many of the 'building blocks' of life is not an issue for abiogenesis hypotheses.

 

[BobRyan]

They may not have said which compounds in Miller's time

we get that a lot -- every time an atheist admits to some flaw the response from other atheists is usually of the form "yes but that was yesterday - and today we know soooo much more of a better answer"

, but we now know the composition of a large number of extraterrestrial organic compounds that could come from space and could be used in abiogenesis.

Miller's challenge was simply "name that compound that does not exist on Earth and would cause a rock to produce an amoeba or a rabbit over time". I note that you suggest there is one but still stick to Miller's observation about "not actually naming it".

In the interview they do discuss alien rocks from outer space (the new "hopeful monster" theory adapted for aliens in outer space apparently) - so it is not like they were ignoring it.

The consensus seems to be that they're not essential, they could be made on Earth

Hmm -- that would be Miller's point "again".

His argument is that believing in the story means that you should be able to come up with the chemical experiment to "do it"

 

[BobRyan]

You're just deflecting from the point of my post. Which is that you said: "rocks [doing] whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time",

And even the Miller interview used the term "lifeless rock" and the OP in my initial thread included the "lifeless Earth- barren of life, lifeless rock" terms.

which is a gross misrepresentation

The paucity of logic in that statement is more than a little obvious given what Miller and you already admitted to about the "lifeless rock" statement.

 

[BobRyan]

Your continued reference to that Miller interview isn't supporting you here, since the "lifeless rock" bit didn't even come from Miller. .

It came from the interview with Miller where Miller expanded on it to affirm in even more detail the fact that earth at one time had no life on it.

The point remains... obviously.