How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator

dmmesdale · Jul 14, 2017

Jimmy D said:
I believe research has moved on since the fifties Mark....

Abiogenesis - RationalWiki

All we have to do is read the first to know they have no evidential basis for any of it.

Scientists speculate (Guesses) that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents.[1][2] This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proven although the current evidence is generally supportive of it.

Vague and evidence free rosy scenarios and guesses not science in the first place.

Jimmy D · Jul 14, 2017

dmmesdale said:
All we have to do is read the first to know they have no evidential basis for any of it.

Scientists speculate (Guesses) that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents.[1][2] This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proven although the current evidence is generally supportive of it.

Vague and evidence free rosy scenarios and guesses not science in the first place.

Yes, I understand that you don't accept the possibility, how are you proposing life appeared on Earth?

Strathos · Jul 14, 2017

Whether the first living cell popped into existence fully formed, or whether it evolved from simpler self-replicating organisms, that doesn't do anything to challenge the ToE or the fact that God planned it all.

Subduction Zone · Jul 14, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Not convinced abiogenisis is the answer, eh? What alternative are you proposing?

Magic!

Subduction Zone · Jul 14, 2017

dmmesdale said:
All we have to do is read the first to know they have no evidential basis for any of it.

Scientists speculate (Guesses) that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents.[1][2] This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proven although the current evidence is generally supportive of it.

Vague and evidence free rosy scenarios and guesses not science in the first place.

If scientists are not extremely sure that is the language that they use. I am sorry if you can't understand honesty.

But it does show that you are wrong when you claim "dogma". There is no atheist dogma. You are merely projecting that flaws of your religion upon others.

Let me interpret that for you. It says exactly what I have been saying, that there is evidence for abiogenesis, but not enough to lift the concept past the hypothesis state, . . . yet.

Their is some evidence for abiogenesis but not enough to bring it up to the theory level.

Subduction Zone · Jul 14, 2017

Strathos said:
Whether the first living cell popped into existence fully formed, or whether it evolved from simpler self-replicating organisms, that doesn't do anything to challenge the ToE or the fact that God planned it all.

If you want to believe that that is fine with me. I only have a problem with Christians that deny all of reality. And you may be right. At least you are not the one trying to tell God how he had to make the Earth.

Lily of Valleys · Jul 14, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
And yes, the fact that we are descended from other apes does tell us quite a bit about ourselves.

What is your evidence that it is a "fact" that we are descended from other apes?

Jimmy D · Jul 14, 2017

Lily of Valleys said:
What is your evidence that it is a "fact" that we are descended from other apes?

His DNA.

Subduction Zone · Jul 14, 2017

Lily of Valleys said:
What is your evidence that it is a "fact" that we are descended from other apes?

DNA, ERV's, thousands of hominid fossils, the list goes on. Meanwhile there is no evidence at all for creationist claims. Most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence.

46AND2 · Jul 14, 2017

Lily of Valleys said:
What is your evidence that it is a "fact" that we are descended from other apes?

Lots of twin nested hierarchies.

Mark Corbett · Jul 14, 2017

Jimmy D said:
I believe research has moved on since the fifties Mark....

Jimmy, overall I appreciate your comment as it includes specific evidence relevant to this discussion. Thanks!

Your opening remark feels a little unfair, though. It seems to imply that I'm basing something on research from the 50s. This is just not true:

1. My OP is based on a scientific article from 2016.
2. I mentioned "Miller Urey inspired experiments", meaning more recent experiments which have similar goals as the 1950s Miller Urey experiment.
3. I was not the one who first mentioned the name Miller Urey. I was responding to someone who mentioned that name in support of unguided evolution.
4. It is true that two resources I gave links to interact some with the Miller Urey experiment. That is because that experiment continues to appear in biology text books as evidence for abiogenesis.
5. Even when I mentioned these experiments, the specific arguments I gave are still relevant today and are also based on current research.

Jimmy D said:
Abiogenesis - RationalWiki

In 2001 Louis Allamandola demonstrated that organic material can be synthesized in deep space using a "Chill vacuum chamber"--a lot of biomolecules: nitriles, ethers, alcohols, ring-like hydrocarbons, and others.[8] [9]

In a complementary experiment, Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."[10]

In 2010 Craig Venter and his colleagues inserted a wholly artificial chromosome into a bacterial cell and produced the first artificial life form (a.k.a. "dial-a-genome").[11] While it may seem like artificial abiogenesis, it nevertheless involved some major cheating: the artificial chromosome was constructed using gene sequences of an existing organism.

As of 2011, Lee Cronin at the University of Glasgow is trying to start an evolutionary process in polyoxometalate-based "cells".[12]

In 2014 a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of RNA by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions.[13]

A 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light. [14]

In 2015 the lander Philae discovered 16 organic compounds, four of which had never been detected on a comet before, on the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Many of the organic compounds are important building-blocks of life.[15] [16][17]

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.[18][19]

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.[20][21]

Your list of experiments quoted from the rationalwiki page does show that scientists are working hard on the problem of the origin of life. However, none of the experiments you mention address the main argument of the OP. Nor do they address the related issue of how a sequence of amino acids forming an average length functional biological protein could have been produced.

Subduction Zone · Jul 14, 2017

Mark Corbett said:
Jimmy, overall I appreciate your comment as it includes specific evidence relevant to this discussion. Thanks!

Your opening remark feels a little unfair, though. It seems to imply that I'm basing something on research from the 50s. This is just not true:

1. My OP is based on a scientific article from 2016.
2. I mentioned "Miller Urey inspired experiments", meaning more recent experiments which have similar goals as the 1950s Miller Urey experiment.
3. I was not the one who first mentioned the name Miller Urey. I was responding to someone who mentioned that name in support of unguided evolution.
4. It is true that two resources I gave links to interact some with the Miller Urey experiment. That is because that experiment continues to appear in biology text books as evidence for abiogenesis.
5. Even when I mentioned these experiments, the specific arguments I gave are still relevant today and are also based on current research.

Your list of experiments quoted from the rationalwiki page does show that scientists are working hard on the problem of the origin of life. However, none of the experiments you mention address the main argument of the OP. Nor do they address the related issue of how a sequence of amino acids forming an average length functional biological protein could have been produced.

The OP was an interminable list of PRATT's that may have been inspired by a scientific article, but had very little to do with it.

Why don't you try again? Cite the article, tell us what your point is. Then try to defend it. When you do a Gish Gallop as you did a single refutation shoots down the whole Gallop. It is not a proper debating technique. That is why it only takes one shot. You lost that already.

Motherofkittens · Jul 14, 2017

Christodoulos said:
we are here talking about Mr Flew and not anyone else. You made the statement that this self-confessed atheist, who was supposed to have been the "biggest" in the world, changed his mind because he was afraid to die. Do you know this for a fact? Why would it seem incredible to you that he saw that he was wrong all his life, and then changed his mind because of what he read in the Holy Bible?

He didn't die a christian. I know many religious people who became atheists and religious people who changed religions. So? That doesn't make something true because people believe it is true. You have zero evidence for your gods. I won't believe until there is good evidence to.

Motherofkittens · Jul 14, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Life from nonlife is fiction and you do not work in Puiblic Education. Right. The laws of physics are as solid as universal common descent and blind watchmaker evolution. There may be external compliance, but that is about it. The atheists have a stranglehold on it all, but it will not last forever. That is what blind watchmaker evolution is. The atheists counter and inferior explanation for origins.
Right all dissenters are liars, and the truth-tellers are the atheists who assert we came from apes and all life here is from nonlife based on blind faith. No evidence required.
Life is evidence. Right, you are the expert. Where is your scientific evidence for life from nonlife? Life is the evidence. Life needs a first cause. Based on all we know which is more reasonable given the two options? A living first cause or a nonliving first cause?

You know the largest groups of people who accept evolution are religious? Christians too. This isn't atheism vs the bible this is science vs one out of many interruptions of the bible.

Lily of Valleys · Jul 15, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
DNA, ERV's, thousands of hominid fossils, the list goes on. Meanwhile there is no evidence at all for creationist claims. Most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence.

As far as I am aware, none of these you mentioned prove that it is a fact that we are descended from other apes. Perhaps you need to explain in what way these serve as evidence to prove your claim that it is a fact that we are descended from other apes.

Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe. – Proslogion

Are Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Evidence for Evolution? | Evolution Dismantled

What Do Evolutionists Do When One of Their Own Is Honest about the Data? – Proslogion

Lily of Valleys · Jul 15, 2017

46AND2 said:
Lots of twin nested hierarchies.

We constantly find organisms that don’t fit neatly into a phylogenetic tree. Or, what happens is evolutionary biologists attempt to force-fit organisms into the tree only by invoking processes like convergent evolution and loss of traits. In other words, evolutionary biologists are forced to propose that an organism’s traits did not arise through common ancestry, because common ancestry fails to explain the data.

The first and primary assumption of all evolutionary phylogenetic classification methodologies is that common ancestry is true. This assumption nearly always goes unquestioned, even when the data doesn’t support it.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/06/do_all_life_for/

Subduction Zone · Jul 15, 2017

Lily of Valleys said:
As far as I am aware, none of these you mentioned prove that it is a fact that we are descended from other apes. Perhaps you need to explain in what way these serve as evidence to prove your claim that it is a fact that we are descended from other apes.

Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe. – Proslogion

Are Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Evidence for Evolution? | Evolution Dismantled

What Do Evolutionists Do When One of Their Own Is Honest about the Data? – Proslogion

They do. Too bad that all you can find are dishonest sources. When one can only find bad resources it indicates that they are wrong.

Subduction Zone · Jul 15, 2017

Lily of Valleys said:
We constantly find organisms that don’t fit neatly into a phylogenetic tree. Or, what happens is evolutionary biologists attempt to force-fit organisms into the tree only by invoking processes like convergent evolution and loss of traits. In other words, evolutionary biologists are forced to propose that an organism’s traits did not arise through common ancestry, because common ancestry fails to explain the data.

The first and primary assumption of all evolutionary phylogenetic classification methodologies is that common ancestry is true. This assumption nearly always goes unquestioned, even when the data doesn’t support it.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/06/do_all_life_for/

Again, you are relying on a bogus source. It seems that you know that you resources are bad since you could not even properly repeat any of their arguments.

dmmesdale · Jul 15, 2017

Motherofkittens said:
You know the largest groups of people who accept evolution are religious? Christians too. This isn't atheism vs the bible this is science vs one out of many interruptions of the bible.

Blind watchmaker is atheistic. Quote.

“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.1

Subduction Zone · Jul 15, 2017

dmmesdale said:
Blind watchmaker is atheistic. Quote.

“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.1

What was your source for this quote? It appears to be from a bogus source.

How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

No one important

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency