Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[Justatruthseeker]

You obviously haven’t kept up with the field . Abiogenesis is evolution

Not according to every evolutionist on here when it comes to discussing the origin of life. Do I need to go look up all the posts where informed that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution???

Abiogenesis is just as much faith as creation. Worse.

Might as well believe in spontaneous generation, that's all it really is.

"Belief in spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century"

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][note 1] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter"

Apparently some still believe life arose by spontaneous generation from non-living matter, without divine aid.

 

[Brightmoon]

Jeffery Tompkins is an evolution denier and given his affiliation with a well known creation “science” promotor, I suspect his papers ignore evidence that he’s wrong.

 

[Brightmoon]

That was a typo which I’ve since corrected, sorry . I also explain the difference between them since you creationists never seem to get it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not according to every evolutionist on here when it comes to discussing the origin of life. Do I need to go look up all the posts where informed that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution???

Abiogenesis is just as much faith as creation. Worse.

Might as well believe in spontaneous generation, that's all it really is.

"Belief in spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century"

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][note 1] is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter"

Apparently some still believe life arose by spontaneous generation from non-living matter, without divine aid.

The whole Abiogenesis thing can be summed up as a chicken or egg question, was it protiens producing RNA or vice versa:

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others) Charles Carter, Biology Direct. Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH?)
​

It being a popular fantasy seems an apt description to me.

 

[Brightmoon]

Since you believe anything Jeffery Tompkins says...

 

[Brightmoon]

That biology direct link doesn’t work

 

[mark kennedy]

That biology direct link doesn’t work

My bad, I linked it to my desktop copy by mistake, try it again.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since you believe anything Jeffery Tompkins says...

I don't pay him a lot of mind to be honest, AIG is usually just a starting point for me.

 

[Brightmoon]

So why bring him up . AiGs info is so bad that I’ve learned over the years to circular file it. It’s almost to the point of a reflex by this time

 

[Brightmoon]

I take it you just looked at the title and didn’t read the actual paper . I’m gonna suggest that you look at the conclusions section .

 

[mark kennedy]

So why bring him up . AiGs info is so bad that I’ve learned over the years to circular file it. It’s almost to the point of a reflex by this time

I didn't bring it up, you did.

 

[mark kennedy]

I take it you just looked at the title and didn’t read the actual paper . I’m gonna suggest that you look at the conclusions section .

Of course I read the paper and several others on the subject, it's kind of interesting. How much background reading have you done on the subject?

 

[Brightmoon]

I’ve got a biology degree probably more than I wanted to

 

[pitabread]

So the designed biological organisms were "designed" to reproduce after there own kind. That's what the book says.

But in this case you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. It's circular logic.

In the case of SETI, they're taking something of artificial origin (i.e. narrow-band radio waves) based on the fact that humans manufacture radio transmitters to generate such a phenomenon. Same thing with computer virus (basically a computer program). Computers and their software are of known human origin.

In the case of DNA we don't have a solely artificial known source.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The whole Abiogenesis thing can be summed up as a chicken or egg question, was it protiens producing RNA or vice versa:

“I, for one, have never subscribed to this view of the origin of life, and I am by no means alone. The RNA world hypothesis is driven almost entirely by the flow of data from very high technology combinatorial libraries, whose relationship to the prebiotic world is anything but worthy of “unanimous support”. There are several serious problems associated with it, and I view it as little more than a popular fantasy” (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others) Charles Carter, Biology Direct. Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH?)
​

It being a popular fantasy seems an apt description to me.

interesting from what I read. Will peruse it in more detail tonight.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But in this case you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. It's circular logic.

In the case of SETI, they're taking something of artificial origin (i.e. narrow-band radio waves) based on the fact that humans manufacture radio transmitters to generate such a phenomenon. Same thing with computer virus (basically a computer program). Computers and their software are of known human origin.

In the case of DNA we don't have a solely artificial known source.

But who would assume a complicated set of programming capable of self repair against the very mechanism claimed to have caused it, would be anything but artificial?

 

[Brightmoon]

The genetic repair “ mechanism “ isn’t perfect. The small mistakes allow genetic novelties to be retained . Plate tectonics is always slowly changing the climate and a static genome can’t adapt to that Remember that Antarctica once had dinosaurs and ferns living on it. So that leaky repair “mechanism” is the way it’s supposed to be.

 

[BradB]

You obviously haven’t kept up with the field otherwise you wouldn’t say something so ignorant. There is recent evidence that LUCA was a thermophilic anaerobe .
Abiogenesis isn’t evolution. Evolution is about populations and the gene pool and how that changes over time. Microevolution is about genetic variation within a species . Macroevolution is speciation whether that happens gradually over time or literally the next generation as in a polyploid species.
Abiogenesis is how life started from chemicals and one doesn’t have much to do with the other. (Other than that they’re both about life. )

You may want to back read and see my explanation on why similarity among different organisms cannot be used in this discussion as evidence for anything. The entire argument for "LUCA" is based on the idea that similarities (i.e. gene sequences) equate to evolutionary relationship and thus the entire idea is circular reasoning. It basically says "we know evolution is true because abiogenesis occurred, and we know abiogenesis occurred because evolution is true."

Also I didn't say abiogenesis was evolution. I said it is a topic that most evolutionists don't like to discuss. One does have to do with the other. If you were at the end of a long line of falling dominos obviously watching the last three to five fall would bring up the topic as to what started the first one falling. Basically universal common decent is a theory that postulates a long line of "dominos" and to say the question of "what started it all" has nothing to do with it, is just burying your head in the sand.

You may think that the Miller experiment offered a ray of hope for the evolutionist, because he was able to create a few amino acids in an array that supposedly simulated the early primitive earth atmosphere. At the time it was commonly believed that the early atmosphere consisted of Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and water vapor, which is precisely what Miller used in his array. He then shot electrical arcs through the apparatus to simulate lightning and eventually collected some amino acids at the bottom of the mixture. Amino acids are of course the building blocks for proteins which are the building blocks for cells. Many believed that Miller had proven that life could have spontaneously formed under early atmosphere conditions, given enough time for chance to put the components all together. However many other scientists have questioned the validity of the experiment pointing out that it didn't accurately represent what the early atmosphere would have been like. They argued that Hydrogen would have escaped into the outer atmosphere and therefore the early earth's atmosphere consisted of a Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide, and water vapor composition. Numerous experiments were done with this mixture, including by Miller, and had negative results.

So for the sake of argument let's say Miller had the atmosphere right. What did he actually create? A few amino acids? But those are not proteins. Just a simple calculation of the probability of getting one protein molecule to generate from natural laws is astronomical. It's about equal to a blind man finding one marked grain of sand in the entire Sahara Desert 3 times in a row. That's just to generate one protein, yet one protein molecule is nowhere close to being life. To get life you need about 200 protein molecules together. Then we have the problem of the specificity of the amino acid sequences in a recognizable protein that are coded by the exact nucleotide arrangement in DNA. This is so specific that if any one of the nucleotides were out of order, the protein is rendered useless. Also consider that if a cell needs only a few specific proteins out of an unimaginable number of possibilities that would have to have came together by chance, what possible explanation is there for how they were manufactured without the help of the DNA which could not have preceded them? And finally, after you have factored in other technicalities like essential enzymes and histones, the probability of generating even one small protein by random chance, easily surpasses the most liberal estimates of all the number of atoms available in the entire universe. Catch that? That means there aren't enough atoms in existence to equal the number of useless proteins manufactured in a random fashion before accidentally getting one useful variety. Most common estimates of the total number of atoms available in the entire universe are around 10 to the 80 power, while most common estimates of the odds of generating one protein by unguided forces is one in 10 to the 130th power.

 

[BradB]

But in this case you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. It's circular logic.

No you're conflating issues. You said that we have observed DNA form naturally through reproduction. That is not what we have observed. We have observed it copied and recopied but not "formed" by any natural sources. I was pointing out that the Bible says that this is how it was created and that is what we do actually observe. Not assuming anything just pointing out the obvious observations and how they happen to agree with the book.

In the case of SETI, they're taking something of artificial origin (i.e. narrow-band radio waves) based on the fact that humans manufacture radio transmitters to generate such a phenomenon. Same thing with computer virus (basically a computer program). Computers and their software are of known human origin.

Actually here's a video I did with SETI Astronomer Jill Tarter explaining exactly what it is they are looking for. To save time skip to 4:34 minutes in. Note how she says they are looking in the radio for frequency compression, or in the optical for time compression. These are either a radio burst or optical burst that would tell them that the signal likely had an intelligent source. If they observed such a signal it would NOT be human in origin. But the key here is that such a signal would be recognized by the observer from a previous experience that would tell them that the signal had an intent or purpose. That is the definition of specificity.

In the case of DNA we don't have a solely artificial known source.

In the case of the code in DNA we don't have any known source. We have never observed DNA form artificially or naturally. But what we have observed is that the kind of structure found in the code of DNA has only been observed forming by intelligent sources...period.

 

[Brightmoon]

That still doesn’t change the fact that you creationists have arbitrarily decided that genetic similarities don’t show relatedness. Those gene switching experiments done during the early 00s and late 90s rule that out . The ones where they switched master control genes like the ones for eye formation between distantly related organisms like flies ( arthropods) mice (mammalia) and squid ( molluscs) and humans were added just to put paid to the nonsense that we somehow weren’t animalia