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

[pitabread]

state a fact

It's a fact that the Lenski experiment has nothing do with recreating eukaryote evolution.

Do you agree with this fact?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

state a fact

It's a fact that you really don't actually understand anything that the theory of evolution or any of the hypotheses for abiogenesis, especially panspermia, actually say and that you seem to enjoy just repeating the falsehoods you've made ad nauseum.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually it is the "contrast" between "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time" vs "God can do it in a single evening-and-morning on day 6".

details.

Rocks "wanting" and "coming up with" things.

Are these real details of the current scientific understanding?

 

[pitabread]

"rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"

What do you think that process actually entails? Please explain your understanding of it.

(For the record, I've never seen any academic or professional scientific source state the process of abiogenesis or evolution as being rocks "[doing] whatever they want".)

 

[BobRyan]

What "story" is that, exactly? Oparin's hypothesis?
Do you even understand the impetus for those experiments?

==========================

They might not have gotten the results they wanted, but the Miller-Urey experiment was not the be-all-and-end-all of experiments

It was very instructive in showing that the "story" that had been proposed was not viable. instead of everyone simply "assuming" it was proven concept -- everyone is "informed" of the road-block dead-end that they ran into.

"The story" about initial imagined conditions on Earth providing the perfect environment to produce the mono-chiral-viable complete set of amino acids needed to use as "the basics" the minimum required "alphabet" (as it were) (not to mention the letter-selection and letter sequence to actually write out the sentence (as it were) that describes a given protein in terms of a sequence of letters (amino acids).

But first for Miller-Eurey - how to get the "alphabet" to exist in a non-racemic state, one that could then "imaginably" be "selected, sequenced and folded" by some other mythical "thing" to then create a protein (a brick for some part of the house).

Miller Comments: "

All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture, that is, equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of life. There is no way in my opinion that you are going to sort out the D and L amino acids in separate pools. "​

So then ignoring the impossible task of sequencing and folding they would just need "the basic alphabet" - a viable alphabet as a starting point. And of course "didn't get it". Getting a racemic mixture of some of the alphabet needed merely shows that acids (even amino acids) can be produced in an experiment.

Without a valid start there is no "next".

The point is not that there is no such thing as a contrived chemical reaction that will produce an acid.. in this case an amino acid. The point is that getting the complete set with the right chiral orientation is "non trivial". And they did not get that.

Miller comments; "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. If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support"​

Miller's comments from -

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

=========================

It seems that you are just relying on creationist sources, which have a sad history of not being honest.

1. These are not "just creationist sources" - but I notice that many here tend to only rely on "evolutionist sources". Odd that you would point out that weakness when it is the very thing evolutionists are relying on.
2. Evolutionist sources often show a sad history of "biggest fraud in history" attributes such as the case with Ernst Haeckle's fraud about ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny - a decades long fraud that finally got him censored by his own university.

Or we could mention Simpson's initial promotion of the 5 decades long fraud of Othaniel Marsh showing smooth orthogenic transitions for the horse series - (still on display at the Smithsonian though all agree that the sequence is a fraud by Marsh).

 

[BobRyan]

HINT: contrary to creationist disinformation, they did not set out to 'create life',

Did you find a "miller expected to create life" statement in my post or is this more straw-man response?

 

[BobRyan]

Ah - the old 'God can do whatever He wants' gambit...

Actually it is the "contrast" between "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time" vs "God can do it in a single evening-and-morning on day 6".

details.

What do you think that process actually entails? Please explain your understanding of it.

(For the record, I've never seen any academic or professional scientific source state the process of abiogenesis or evolution as being rocks "[doing] whatever they want".)

1. You have someone on this thread already arguing for that very thing.
2. Miller himself admits that the lifeless rock starting point is all you really have.

Some 4.6 billion years ago the planet was a lifeless rock, a billion years later it was teeming with early forms of life. Where is the dividing line between pre-biotic and biotic Earth and how is this determined?

...We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is major area of dispute. ...
Although there is a dispute over the composition of the primitive atmosphere, we've shown that either you have a reducing atmosphere or you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life. If you don't make them on Earth, you have to bring them in on comets, meteorites or dust. Certainly some material did come from these sources. In my opinion the amount from these sources would have been too small to effectively contribute to the origin of life.
from: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was very instructive in showing that the "story" that had been proposed was not viable. instead of everyone simply "assuming" it was proven concept -- everyone is "informed" of the road-block dead-end that they ran into.

Just because you call it a story, does not mean that you are correct.

Really, all your posts clearly show that you don't actually care about the science behind anything, let alone the science you're railing against. You're just hear to cause a stink for nothing other than your own ego.

 

[Speedwell]

==========================



It was very instructive in showing that the "story" that had been proposed was not viable. instead of everyone simply "assuming" it was proven concept -- everyone is "informed" of the road-block dead-end that they ran into.

Nobody supposes that it is a "proven concept." At the present time it is nothing but a collection of hypotheses.

"The story" about initial imagined conditions on Earth providing the perfect environment to produce the mono-chiral-viable complete set of amino acids needed to use as "the basics" the minimum required "alphabet" (as it were) (not to mention the letter-selection and letter sequence to actually write out the sentence (as it were) that describes a given protein in terms of a sequence of letters (amino acids).

But first for Miller-Eurey - how to get the "alphabet" to exist in a non-racemic state, one that could then "imaginably" be "selected, sequenced and folded" by some other mythical "thing" to then create a protein (a brick for some part of the house).

Miller Comments: "

All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture, that is, equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of life. There is no way in my opinion that you are going to sort out the D and L amino acids in separate pools. "​

So then ignoring the impossible task of sequencing and folding they would just need "the basic alphabet" - a viable alphabet as a starting point. And of course "didn't get it". Getting a racemic mixture of some of the alphabet needed merely shows that acids (even amino acids) can be produced in an experiment.

Without a valid start there is no "next".

The point is not that there is no such thing as a contrived chemical reaction that will produce an acid.. in this case an amino acid. The point is that getting the complete set with the right chiral orientation is "non trivial". And they did not get that.

Miller comments; "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. If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support"​

Miller's comments from -

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

=========================


1. These are not "just creationist sources" - but I notice that many here tend to only rely on "evolutionist sources". Odd that you would point out that weakness when it is the very thing evolutionists are relying on.
2. Evolutionist sources often show a sad history of "biggest fraud in history" attributes such as the case with Ernst Haeckle's fraud about ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny - a decades long fraud that finally got him censored by his own university.

Or we could mention Simpson's initial promotion of the 5 decades long fraud of Othaniel Marsh showing smooth orthogenic transitions for the horse series - (still on display at the Smithsonian though all agree that the sequence is a fraud by Marsh).

Stanley Miller died in 2007, after having not been actively working in the field for some years.

 

[pitabread]

1. You have someone on this thread already arguing for that very thing.
2. Miller himself admits that the lifeless rock starting point is all you really have.

I'm asking what *you* think the process entails in light of your comment, "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time".

What exactly do you mean by that particular statement? What do you think the process of abiogenesis and evolution entails?

(I'm trying to see if this is anything other than another hyperbolic strawman.)

 

[BobRyan]

Just because you call it a story, does not mean that you are correct.

Miller also refers to it as 'story' -

==============================


So while these are potential sources of organic compounds they are not essential for the creation of life on Earth?

... I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support.

...There is another part of the story. In 1969 a carbonaceous meteorite fell in Murchison Australia. It turned out the meteorite had high concentrations of amino acids, about 100 ppm, and they were the same kind of amino acids you get in prebiotic experiments like mine. This discovery made it plausible that similar processes could have happened on primitive Earth, on an asteroid, or for that matter, anywhere else the proper conditions exist.[/quote]

And of course his experiment did not produce the correct mono-chiral full set of amino acids needed for even the most basic "alphabet" starting point for the protein "sentences" (in that analogy).

 

[BobRyan]

Nobody supposes that it is a "proven concept." At the present time it is nothing but a collection of hypotheses.
.

Well certainly I don't post that it is a "proven concept"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Miller also refers to it as 'story' -

==============================


So while these are potential sources of organic compounds they are not essential for the creation of life on Earth?

... I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support.

...There is another part of the story. In 1969 a carbonaceous meteorite fell in Murchison Australia. It turned out the meteorite had high concentrations of amino acids, about 100 ppm, and they were the same kind of amino acids you get in prebiotic experiments like mine. This discovery made it plausible that similar processes could have happened on primitive Earth, on an asteroid, or for that matter, anywhere else the proper conditions exist.

And of course his experiment did not produce the correct mono-chiral full set of amino acids needed for even the most basic "alphabet" starting point for the protein "sentences" (in that analogy).[/QUOTE]

So you don't understand the concept of colourful language and analogies then. Not surprised at all.

 

[BobRyan]

Ah - the old 'God can do whatever He wants' gambit...

Actually it is the "contrast" between
A. Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time" B. Creationist claims of the form "God can do it in a single evening-and-morning on day 6".

details.

I'm asking what *you* think the process entails in light of your comment, "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time".

What exactly do you mean by that particular statement? What do you think the process of abiogenesis and evolution entails?

Abiogenesis does not exist outside of imagination thought experiment where a single celled organism is produced given a barren Earth ("life less rock" as that interview with Miller states) - starting point.

 

[BobRyan]

So you don't understand the concept of colourful language and analogies then. Not surprised at all.

state a fact ... we can talk.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

Unless you can actually show someone making that claim, you made that up and are repeatedly lying about it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

state a fact ... we can talk.

Avoidance. You keep being shown that you are wrong, repeatedly, and you just keep ignoring them.

I do not think that you are here for a genuine discussion of science at all.

 

[pitabread]

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

I'm not aware of any atheists that claim this. It appears you're once again resorting to strawman claims.

Now if you want to convince me you're not resorting to a strawman, then you need to explain what you mean by that statement in the context of abiogenesis and evolution. IOW, what does contemporary scientific claims* re: abiogenesis and evolution actually say? Because it appears you don't really know.

(*Noting that this still has *nothing* to do with atheism or atheists and that is still just a red herring on your part.)

Abiogenesis does not exist outside of imagination thought experiment where a single celled organism is produced given a barren Earth ("life less rock" as that interview with Miller states) - starting point.

Are you familiar with the contemporary research into abiogenesis? You've repeatedly cited Miller, but are you familiar with any abiogenesis research since?

 

[pitabread]

state a fact ... we can talk.

Okay. It's a fact that you are persistently and consistently misrepresenting scientific claims re: abiogenesis and evolution.

Now why is that?

 

[pitabread]

I do not think that you are here for a genuine discussion of science at all.

And the understatement of the year award goes to...