I may give evolution a shot.

No, not evolution, Dr. Fox's Theory. If you dont know, go get some 6th grade science books they teach why his theorys are wrong.
I dont know the source on the web.

Dont believe me, read a 6th grade book!
Lol, scary, but true!

Lonnie said:

No, not evolution, Dr. Fox's Theory. If you dont know, go get some 6th grade science books they teach why his theorys are wrong.
I dont know the source on the web.

Dont believe me, read a 6th grade book!
Lol, scary, but true!

Click to expand...

Sorry lonnie, I doubt your books disprove anything. Anyone can make protocells or protenoids. That would disprove your "science" book.
The books i have around me are a little farther along.

Lonnie said:

"Thank you, Jaci, for so clearly showing how Biblical literalism has become a false idol!"
Or mabey showing that you should not take the bible theorleticly.
Lucaspa, Do you know what theorectic means?

1. Of, relating to, or based on theory.
2. Restricted to theory; not practical: theoretical physics.
3. Given to theorizing; speculative.

So you are reading the bible, based on the theory of evolution?

Click to expand...

Nope. What you say I am doing isn't the defintion. Taking the Bible theoretically would be saying that it is not practical or it is only speculative. I'm not doing that. But more on that below.

What you are saying I am doing is taking the Bible and making it fit the theory of evolution. I'm not doing that, either.

I'm using God's second book to help me decide which interpretation to use on the Bible. Christians have always done this. Christianity started out believing in a flat earth. The Biblical authors thought the earth was flat and that is embedded in many of the passages in the OT, such as Genesis 1:6-8 where God places a dome over a flat earth. When flat earth was falsified, those passages were reinterpreted. Today you can see Biblical literalists desperately trying to change the "circle" of Isaiah 40:21-22 to a sphere. Reinterpretation. Christians also thought that the earth did not move. I've posted in this thread the Biblical passages that say this in plain Hebrew. When it was found that the earth orbits the sun, Christians re-interpreted these passages.

So, Christians always use extrabiblical evidence to reinterpret the Bible. Not theories, but facts. The facts show that the earth is not young, that there never was a world-wide flood, and that humans evolved from earlier species. The facts. Not the theory. But the facts. So I'm using the extrabiblical evidence to help me decide that Genesis 1-8 is not literal history. Of course, the internal evidence from the text also says this.

Nor am I saying the Bible is only speculative and not practical. I'm saying the theological messages in Genesis 1-3 are very real. And true. But those messages are set in a non-literal history. But the messages don't depend on the history. The messages are just as valid in evolution as they are in the Babylonian science in which they are set.

Lonnie, do you have any idea what the theological messages of Genesis 1-3 are? Would you please list them for me?

Intresting, that seems to be warping the bible to your theory. As that is what theoretic means.

Click to expand...

That isn't what "theoretic" means. Read your definitions above.I'm not "warping" the Bible at all.

I'm not changing any of the passages. I'm simply using the accepted rules of interpretation http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html to find out what the authors intended to say and not impose my literalist interpretation.

So either believe what the bible says based on evolution, or have the bible be read the way it was written. Hmm... Lucaspa, some how, your way seem very, illogical, and many people agree with me.

Click to expand...

That's because 1) you misrepresent what I am saying and 2) you too are worshipping the false idol of Biblical literalism. You consistently ignore God and that God really did create. Because you ignore everything God left in His Creation that invalidates your false idol.

What you are saying is "read the Bible as I and those like me say you should read it. Ignore anything in the text that says you are not supposed to and ignore God in His Creation. Just listen to us."

I won't do that. I won't break the First Commandment for you. Your literal interpretation of the Bible isn't God. And I won't worship it.

"Punctuated equilibria notes that large populations of species are in stasis for the lifetime of a species. That's because 1) it takes a lot of time for new alleles to be fixed in large populations and 2) the species is well-adapted to its environment and thus isn't going to change"...
Lucaspa this theory was not a part of Darwins proposal but just a recent adjustment to preserve evolution from the lack of graduated development in the fossil record..can't find what the theory predicts in the fossil record? change it so that a Goldschmidt monster pops up..a reptile has an egg and boom(evolutionary speaking of thousands of years) a bird hatches...Please see the history of your theory as very plastic in nature..it will be made to fit any evidence and anything contradictory must cause a change in how evolution works because evolution is fact and any concession to an intelligent design has ramifications to many atheistic scientists.

Lonnie said:

No, not evolution, Dr. Fox's Theory. If you dont know, go get some 6th grade science books they teach why his theorys are wrong.
I dont know the source on the web.

Dont believe me, read a 6th grade book!
Lol, scary, but true!

Click to expand...

Tell us what you think the 6th grade book says that are against the protocells either forming or being alive. This is nice ad hominem, Lonnie, but that's all it is.

BTW, we aren't talking about Fox's theory of abiogenesis here. We are talking about the protocells.

Fox also had a theory that life in the past formed by protocells forming on lava. That is probably wrong. The lava wouldn't be in the right position to get the job done. However, since protocells can form in simulated tidal pools or hydrothermal vents, we can forget the lava.

"As to the recipe, here it is. Try it yourself.

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7020 MEM amino acids solution. it will cost you $11.95 plus shipping for a 100 ml. bottle. Empty the bottle into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain)."


what proof is that?..being out 15 minutes then add water..besides what makes up the amino acid solution may not be what made up the primordial soup..remember this soup was in its state for millions of years not 15 minutes..and there was no cooling effect of the rain so this experiment may not prove anything..if it is what you claim.

napajohn said:

"Punctuated equilibria notes that large populations of species are in stasis for the lifetime of a species. That's because 1) it takes a lot of time for new alleles to be fixed in large populations and 2) the species is well-adapted to its environment and thus isn't going to change"...
Lucaspa this theory was not a part of Darwins proposal but just a recent adjustment to preserve evolution from the lack of graduated development in the fossil record.

Click to expand...

1. Darwin did write this
"Many species once formed never undergo any further change ... and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 4th and later editions, pg. 727 That's PE.

2. PE wasn't devised because the fossil record didn't back evolution. It does. Both Eldredge and Gould have published papers observing gradual change. What the fossil record doesn't support is an idea called phyletic gradualism. (I wrote all this in another thread to you, napa. Oh well, I'm sure the lurkers can get something from it even tho you will ignore it.) In this idea of Darwin's, the majority of evolution happens by entire populations slowly transform to new species. However in the 1940s Mayr thought that most speciation comes from allopatric speciation. A small population isolated from the main one and gradually transforming over generations. What Eldredge and Gould realized was that the fossil record looked exactly like it should if most speciation was allopatric.

change it so that a Goldschmidt monster pops up..a reptile has an egg and boom(evolutionary speaking of thousands of years) a bird hatches.

Click to expand...

False witness. Gould explicitly rejected this form of Goldschmidt in several essays. Nor was PE ever devised like this. You only find this in creationist misrepresentations of PE, never in Gould himself.

Please see the history of your theory as very plastic in nature..it will be made to fit any evidence and anything contradictory must cause a change in how evolution works because evolution is fact and any concession to an intelligent design has ramifications to many atheistic scientists.

Click to expand...

Nice try at the atheistic conspiracy, but there are too many theistic scientists to put it over.

Napajohn, be careful of throwing stones while living in glass houses. Remember that creationism had no change in species. At all. But now, guess what? Creationism accepts microevolution. Creationism never had new species forming. In fact, in Origin of the Species Darwin falsified creationism, which was what the big fuss was about. But guess what? Speciation is now accepted by creationism! Talk about plastic!!

But no. Theories have core statements and auxiliarly statements. The core statements of evolution are common ancestry and natural selection. "Descent with modification" IOW. Exactly how that modification takes place and exactly how fast the modification takes place are part of the auxiliary statements. PE does not challenge either common ancestry or gradual change in terms of generations. It simply says that most speciation is allopatric (which means we are unlikely to find that exact location and time in the fossil record) and that speciation happens in less than 50,000 years, which is normally too short to show up in the fossil record, because most layers of sediment represent more than 50,000 years of deposition.

Here, read Gould yourself:
"Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate changes. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enourmously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved woudl seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime." Stephen J. Gould, Science and Creationism, A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, pg 29, 1999. www.nap.edu

Napajohn, you are not doing Christianity any good by these continued false witnesses. With friends like you, Christianity doesn't need any enemies.

napajohn said:

"As to the recipe, here it is. Try it yourself.

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7020 MEM amino acids solution. it will cost you $11.95 plus shipping for a 100 ml. bottle. Empty the bottle into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain)."


what proof is that?..being out 15 minutes then add water..besides what makes up the amino acid solution may not be what made up the primordial soup..remember this soup was in its state for millions of years not 15 minutes..and there was no cooling effect of the rain so this experiment may not prove anything..if it is what you claim.

Click to expand...

There are two claims being considered, napa.
1. You can get life from non-life by chemical reactions, not miraculous manufacture by God.
2. How did life actually arise on the primitive earth.

Protocells made this way satisfy claim #1.

We know that amino acids were made by a number of different chemical reactions on the early earth. Not just Miller-Urey, although that is one way. But there are others.

That makes the oceans an amino acid solution. Now envision a tidal pool in the tropics. The sun beats down on the pool, heating and evaporating it. Then the sun continues to heat the dried amino acids and cause them to form proteins. Then the tide comes back in and the proteins form protocells.

OR, the proteins and protocells have been made in simulated hydrothermal vents. And amino acids are also known to be made there. So, simply have the protocells made there and as the water expands away from the vent it reaches cooler water. In fact, protocells are probably being made now at hydrothermal vents. They don't live long because there is life that has 3.8 billion years of evolution behind it. This life looks at the protocells and yells "LUNCH!" and eats it.

Yanagawa, H. and K. Kobayashi. 1992. An experimental approach to chemical evolution in submarine hydrothermal. systems. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22: 147-159.

Svt4Him said:

lucaspa: How do scientists tell that their theories are false? By comparing them to the universe! What is the universe? God's Creation. If the theory is wrong, then God tells us so. This is what happened to creationism. Scientists made a theory based on 1) Greek philosophy, 2) a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8, and 3) initial observations of the universe. That's creationism in the period 1750-1831 when it was the accepted scientific theory. But God thru the universe told the scientists this theory was wrong. So they abandoned the theory. Before Darwin published Origin. And the scientists involved were all theists and many of them were ministers. So there goes the "atheist conspiracy" idea.
Cite please

Click to expand...

"Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophical heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. ...
"We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits." Rev. Adam Sedgwick's presidential address to the Geological Society, 1831

"By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the interpretation of the geological strata had changed radically. Virtually no established geologist thought that the thick sequences of stratified sedimentary rocks so evident in quarries, cliffs, and mountains had anything to do with the flood. Neptunists attributed stratification to deposition of sediments from a shrinking primeval ocean. Others suspected that rock strata represented deposits laid down in successive interchanges of land and sea, possibly over long periods of time before the advent of human beings." Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, pg 98.

BTW, Davis Young is an evangelical Christian and a Ph.D. geologist who is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Calving College. Again, the atheist conspiracy doesn't hold. Read the whole book.

CC Gillespie Genesis and Geology

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating." Specific references are at the end of the article.

I don't follow your logic here. God lied because He made Adam as a man, and made trees, not seeds. Oh, He lied because it confused science? But when was God ever answerable for men's confusion? Sorry, this is not terribly easy to follow.

Click to expand...

If you think God made the Green River varve deposits all at once when we observe one varve = one year. If God made light in transit so that it looks like stars are millions of years old becaue they are millions of light years away. If God deliberately left out of the earth all isotopes with half lives less than 50 million years so that it looks like the earth is so old that all these isotopes have decayed. If God placed K-Ar ratios in rocks so that radiometric dating would show them as millions of years old when they are only 6,000 years old.

These are the kinds of things I am talking about.

Now, in what you are talking about, if God made Adam with a navel. If He made trees with growth rings showing annual growth they never had. BTW, in Genesis 2 God did make plants as seeds and not trees.

Let's see if you follow this:
In 1844 a pamphlet entitled Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, espousing an evolutionary viewpoint, was published. In response Philip Gosse, a minister in the Fundamentalist group called the Plymouth Brethren, wrote Oomphalos, published in 1857. In it Gosse made the first written argument that creation only LOOKS old. In it, Gosse even argued that Adam and Eve had navels because that is what one would expect in God-created creatures.
Gosse expected Oomphalos to be attacked by scientists. What he should have expected, but didn't, was the denunciation by the religious community. Asked to write a review of Oomphalos, his friend Charles Kinglsey, a minister and author of Westward Ho! refused and wrote the following letter to Gosse.
"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [the pamphlet discussed above] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Oomphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands." Garret Hardin, ""Scientific Creationism'" - Marketing Deception as Truth" in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu, 1982.

Sorry, but I've seen things from both a young and old earth perspective, and depending on which data you look at, both can be convincing.

Click to expand...

But you can't look at only some data. What you have been doing is looking only at the supporting data. You can't do that because you can find supporting data for any theory if that is all you are looking for. So you don't compare theories by building stacks of supporting data and see which stack is higher. What counts is the data that can't be there if the theory were true. The falsifying data, IOW. Young earth looks "convincing" because they hide all the falsiying data. Smoke and mirrors.

But what data are you talking about exactly? And I can link to a cite that addresses the errors of carbon dating, if you like.

Click to expand...

We've given you several. 1. Varves. 2. Salt deposits like those under Lake Erie. 3. Stars light years away, and variations of those. 4. The Hawaiian Islands (there's a thread on this somewhere). 5. The chalk cliffs of Dover. 6. Oil and coal deposits. There simply isn't enough time in a 6,000 year old earth to get enough biomass for all that coal and oil, even assuming it can form quickly. 7. Metamorphic rocks with fossils in them. 8. The annual ice layers in the Greenland ice cap and the Andes.

As to C14 dating, it only goes back 50,000 years. Every assay has limits, and so does C14 dating. You can't use it to date living shelled animals. Since it only goes back 50,000 years, you can't use it to date wood fragments in coal deposits older than that. Within its limits, C14 dating is accurate and does show an earth older than 6,000 years old. But notice that none of the examples I gave you involved radiometric dating.

Your contradiction is lacking. You will find that there are many places in the Hebrew Bible where "beyom" means "at the time" in a fairly general sense when the reference is to more than a single day.

Click to expand...

Not here. Jacob really means "in the day" of his troubles.

In Leviticus 14:2 "beyom" precedes a description of ceremonies which take eight days. So these are the facts, ignore them as you will.

Click to expand...

Again, not here. "On the day he is to be pronounced clean, he shall be brought to the priest and the priest shall examine him." That doesn't mean he's brought to the priest over 8 days, but in just one day to do the procedure. The priest doesn't take 8 days to examine him or complete the procedure. "If the disease is healed, the priest shall order that two ritually clean birds be brought ... " The sacrifice takes one day, because in verse 8 we have "He may enter the camp, but must live outside the tent for seven days."

Tsk tsk. Not nice to misquote the Bible.

God clearly warned of what would happen if one sinned. You can say that you are suffering for Adam's sin, but I'd be willing to say you have enough of your own sin to worry about. Now about creation, and your illogical contradiction, again. God created it perfect, so that was the design. Nope, can't see any contradiction here.

Click to expand...

Where, in Genesis 3, does God say that all of creation will be imperfect because of Adam and Eve's disobedience? We are given a list of consequences, but nowhere does it say that the designs in the plants and animals change with the exceptions of thorns on some plants and no legs on serpents. Nowhere does it say that Adam's back will fail with ordinary walking around. Nowhere does it say rabbits will have to eat their own feces because God took away the cellulase from their digestive tract. Nowhere does it say digger wasps will now let their offspring eat grasshoppers alive from the inside. Nowhere does it say that God will take away the Panda's thumb and give it a makeshift.

I'm not surprised you can't see any contradiction, because you are making up the Bible as you go along and not really reading it. We now have the Bible according to creationists, not the Bible as written. Apparently creationists are allowed to add whatever they want to it.

Tell me how evolution answers this question, since you've been exposed to the facts. How would a woodpecker evolve where there's no wood?

Click to expand...

Simple. It evolved where there were trees and then the environment changed from woods to pampas. The woodpecker population had time to adapt.

Covered. At 2:4 YOM is qualified with the
added preposition "B"

Click to expand...

Yes, which means "in the day"

and 2:4 fits well with the other usages that I mentioned above.

Click to expand...

Except the usages don't say what you say they do. BTW, look at Genesis 2:18.

The best way to see what beyom means is to see how else it is used, and if it always means 'one day' in those other contexts. Clearly it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Clearly it does.

Let's look at some other translations:

Click to expand...

But the Bible wasn't written in English, was it. It was written in Hebrew. Yes, you can change 'beyom' here to remove the contradiction, but that's not really valid, is it? We are to take "yom" as a literal 24 hr day in Genesis 1 but not a literal 24 hour day when the prefix "be" (meaning "in the") is added. Suddenly that can mean whatever non-literal yom we want! Lonnie called this type of interpretation "theoretic". That's where you make the Bible fit with your theory. Your theory is no contradiction, so you make the Bible fit that.

My conclusion is that there is a contradiction. Not theory, but conclusion based on the literal criteria you are using.

lucaspa said:

There are two claims being considered, napa.
1. You can get life from non-life by chemical reactions, not miraculous manufacture by God.
2. How did life actually arise on the primitive earth.

Protocells made this way satisfy claim #1.

We know that amino acids were made by a number of different chemical reactions on the early earth. Not just Miller-Urey, although that is one way. But there are others.

That makes the oceans an amino acid solution. Now envision a tidal pool in the tropics. The sun beats down on the pool, heating and evaporating it. Then the sun continues to heat the dried amino acids and cause them to form proteins. Then the tide comes back in and the proteins form protocells.

OR, the proteins and protocells have been made in simulated hydrothermal vents. And amino acids are also known to be made there. So, simply have the protocells made there and as the water expands away from the vent it reaches cooler water. In fact, protocells are probably being made now at hydrothermal vents. They don't live long because there is life that has 3.8 billion years of evolution behind it. This life looks at the protocells and yells "LUNCH!" and eats it.

Yanagawa, H. and K. Kobayashi. 1992. An experimental approach to chemical evolution in submarine hydrothermal. systems. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22: 147-159.

Click to expand...

This sounds like versions of the Fox experiments and enhancements to his process..for a somewhat detailed critique of this 2 of Gishs impact articles
gives a very excellent critique of this theory.
first of all your scenario of a tidal pool in this environment would expose the protein with UV..since most experiments assume an environment that contains little if any oxygen..the issue of a lack of ozone layer would kill all sun-bathing proteins..the oceans themselves would not even exist in such an environment or would be so hot that life could NOT form and live in it..re: lucaspa one can reasonably assume that the sun 3-4 billion years ago would
have been much bigger than today resulting in a more intense burn ..coupled with the lack of ozone layer..I believe Coppertone 50000 would have been a minimum for these sunbathers...
As well as that, one has to account for the conditions these experiments assume..where did the elements even come from...the Big bang theory assumes most of the elements were helium..you have a lot of explaining to do
as to where you got the ingredients in this experiment:
as one critic said in Millers experiments."Miller lists “some important biological compounds that do not yet have adequate prebiotic syntheses." Among the list is histidine and lysine. Go back and check out the recipes."

heres the gish links:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-033.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-037.htm

Lonnie said:

Lucaspa,

You should know, in my high school, and grammer shcool science books it says Dr. Fox theorys have been wrong, and falsified, the site you provided must be false. Look it up if you dont believe me.

Click to expand...

You'll have to provide me with the quotes. I have never seen where Fox's work has been falsified. I've seen people who disagree with parts of it, but not falsified as a whole.

PS Post a link for Proto-cell definition, from a neutral source that mentions neither evolution, or creation. As that way, it will be believable, and not just some ones Lies. Or falsified theorys.

Click to expand...

LOL! Back with the "neutral source". Go stuff yourself, Lonnie! It's a silly criteria and I'm not playing anymore. Look at the data yourself. A lot of it is at the two websites.

Calling something you don't like a "lie" is no good. You have to show why it is a lie.

Also what does Proto-cell stand for? Please provide a link. As I have done High school biology, and have never heard of a Proto-Cell, but I have heard of some other ones that have a simular name.

Click to expand...

As used here, they are cells spontaneously formed from thermal proteins which in turn are formed by heating of amino acids.

PS How do you know if you created life with such a stupid way of trying to create life? As of course every body knows that there are is life that float in the air. And as I would imagine could live off very easily amino acids, as many things need amino acids.

Click to expand...

Life is defined as having all of the following characteristics (check your dictionary): metabolism (catabolism and anabolism), growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction. The protocells have been shown to have all 4.

If you dont believe that Dr. Fox's theorys have been falsified, Then do 6th Grade science! And/or High school science!

Click to expand...

Now you are getting shrill. I post references to the information and you give me back some vague 6th grade science book as a refutation? ROFL!

Lonnie, I went thru grade school and high school science. I also went thru college chemistry and graduate school biochemistry to get a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. When I first came across the protocells about 4 years ago, I was intrigued. And skeptical. So I got photocopies of every paper on the protocells I could lay my hands on. There are over 100. Not only Fox has done this work, but many, many labs around the world. I have read them very critically and can't find any methodological or logical flaws in them. If I had, I wouldn't be posting them now.

I also went back and checked my graduate Biochemistry textbook: Biochemistry by Lehninger. Guess what? They were there and Lehninger, one of the primary names in biochemistry, says they are valid.

Would you take the word of a creationist? Dean Kenyon is coauthor of the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People. Here is what he says:
"The ease with which such protocell units arise under possible primitive Earth conditions has been abundantly documented, especially in the elegant experiments of Sidney Fox and his collaborators on the proteinoid microspheres. .. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that preformed primitive polypeptides (proteinoids) have properties enabling them to aggregate spontaneously to form remarkably uniform spherical units of bacterial dimensions which contain complex internal morphology including a double wall, exchange materials with the ambient medium, grow, cleave in two, fuse, exhibit weak catalytic activiity, and move when ATP is added to the medium. Protocells containing both proteinoid and polynucleotide have been shown to carry on a primitive kind of protocoding activity (27,29) The proteinoid microsphere is a compelling model for the high-probability prebiotic origin of discrete individual units of evolving organic mattter which could conceivably compete with one another and thus provide the basis for a primitive selection process." Dean H. Kenyon, Prefigured ordering and protoselection in the origin of life. In The Origins of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry, ed. Dose, Fox, Deborin, and Pavlovskaya, 1974, pg 211.

Now Lucaspa, why would you post a falsified theory, that is even taugh in 6th grade that it has been falsified?

Click to expand...

Because it is not falsified. Show me where and how, Lonnie, and we'll discuss it.

And they say that it is compatible with the bible, but yet the bible clearly states(unless you are rather missunderstaning the bible) that the World and every thing in it was created in 7 Days.

Click to expand...

The Bible also clearly states that the world was made in one day (altho Svt4him is trying desperately to wriggle out of it.). The Bible also clearly states in Genesis 1 that all the animals were made before man. But in Genesis 2 it states that Adam was made first, then the animals.

So, the Bible is not clear about this.

One more thing. So, either everyone fore the last 6,000+ years(more than 10,000,000,000+ people) , or his class is wrong with a silly theory, that there is lack of evidence for...

Click to expand...

I think you are trying to appeal to numbers here, Lonnie. Lonnie, for thousands of years people thought the sun went around the earth. They were all wrong. And we have gone over the claim "lack of evidence for". Go to PubMed and do a search on "evolution" and then try that "lack of evidence for" argument again.

Hmm... that is not to hard to awnser.

Click to expand...

Then answer it.

And there is nothing that appears to contradict my view of creation, or all of my friends views. If you do then post in more forums, where I will have some more time to read your posts, at http://infinitevgs.phpbbhost.info/ .

Click to expand...

Lonnie, I have no intention of going anywhere else. If you want to run and hide anong Infinite Video Games, then fine..

Oh yes, some links and quotes about the protocells (also called proteinoid microspheres)
http://www.uvsc.edu/courseinfo/biol/bio2130/harrisji/notes1.pdf
"Figure 4 is a photomicrograph of a few of these so-called proteinoid coagulations. Although there is some dispute regarding the relevance to primordial Earth conditions of the laboratory experiments used to produce these proteinoids, the coagulations do seem to resemble morphologically some of the most ancient microfossils as well as modern blue-green algae cells. These curious chemical proteinoids appear to possess many of the attributes of bona fide living organisms: they are cell-like spheres a few microns across, each possessing a thick shell-like membrane; most even appear to exhibit a primitive metabolism, with some dissipating away while others swell and bud (fig. 4). " http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch0.htm
"They have a shape and size similar to bacteria, they have osmotic properties, they can catalyze some kinds of chemical reactions in their interiors, they grow and divide like coacervates, they have a selectively semipermeable double outer layer similar to a cell membrane, they take in polynucleotides, and they even exhibit primitive metabolic pathways. They have even been described as capable of responding to stimuli. One University of Southern Alabama website goes so far as to call them "protocells", implying that protenoid microspheres are, in fact, the progenitors of living cells."
http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/Reich/bions.html
"Fox has shown that protocells (having no DNA) can be made from proteins in the
organic soup. See pg. 314. " http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~jaliff/evolutn.htm
"Biochemist Sydney Fox has actually created self-replicating "protocells" in a high pressure environment from simple organic compounds and very hot liquid water.18" 2Joseph Cone, Fire Under the Sea (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991), p 80
http://www.homestead.com/mischapd/files/writing/vents.html
"Another seminal experiment was performed by Fox. In this experiment, amino acids were heated up to high temperatures and then allowed to cool. During the heating process, some of the amino acids randomly polymerized into proteins. It turned out that these random proteins exhibited weak catalytic (enzymatic) activities. In addition, when water was added proteinoid microsperes were formed and harbored some of the weak enzymes. These protocells had a clear inside and outside and a semipermeable membrane. The spheres also tended to migrate towards higher zinc concentrations. When iodine crystals were added, buds formed on the microspheres that would grow into new microspheres." http://www.nd.edu/~cneal/eg.101/eg101life1/eg101life1.html
http://www.nd.edu/~cneal/eg.101/eg101life1/eg101k.gif

Jaci Fan said:

NAME SOMEONE OTHER THAN GOD INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO CREATE A PERFECTLY DESIGNED BEAUTIFUL CREATION WORLD WITH EVERYTHING IN IT?

Click to expand...

Physics, chemistry, and natural selection.

The problem, Jaci, is
1. Organisms aren't that "perfectly designed".
2. You don't need an intelligent entity to create the things you say are created.

lucaspa said:

How to get a cell from non-living chemicals (and yes, it does assemble itself)
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Be sure to read the second site. And you can do this in your kitchen. Want the recipe?

Click to expand...

Nonsense, because a cell by definition must have enormous metabolic complexity or it will not survive. It's not just a bag of protoplasm with just fluid and a few salts and bits of furniture floating around, but it's built to control itself and propagate itself and for that there must be a minimum complexity which is the problem for 'chemical evolution.'

This is not self organization of a cell.

I suggest you read Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. Do that and then come back and tell us what "fundamental ways" you think are missing.

Click to expand...

Okay, and you read Not by Chance by Lee Spetner and then come back and tell us what fundamental ways that evolution isn't lacking[/i]

Have you even read Origin of the Species?

Click to expand...

Most of it, I have read about 75% of it online.

Since you explained evolution, please explain natural selection to us.

Click to expand...

Fine. Natural selection is survival of the fittest. Organisms which are not fit for the environment are eliminated. An organism may acquire some inheritable trait or character which, in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of its fellows which don't have it). Over succeeding generations that trait or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that population.

dctalkexp, I have news for you, mistakes are an essential part of making all designs.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the news, but I have some for you as well. Mistakes are not responsible for turning millipedes into business managers. To say so is ridiculousness of the highest sort.

But let's consider what happens with those errors in copying DNA. Since DNA codes for the appearance, inner workings, and behavior of the organism, when errors are made in copying DNA in the sex cells, the new DNA changes that organism. Right? It is the changes that are important.

Click to expand...

But changing pre-existent information which already codes every feature of an organism is not a creative force. It can only change an organism's pre-existent information. I thought you were a biologist?

Now, you cannot imagine that some changes are not better ways of doing things than the original? That the changes are actually beneficial to the organism? Especially if the environment is changing and the old ways don't work anymore? Well, the individual lucky enough to have those changes will do better in the environment and will pass down that changed DNA to his/her own offspring, won't it? And they will do better than the other individuals in their generation not lucky enough to have that changed DNA.

Click to expand...

Still, moving around DNA is not a creative force, nor does it explain how you can get rainforests and human beings from the same microscopic cell. Face it, you live on blind faith, with little to no evidence. It really is admirable to see so much faith in you. It's sort of like a child-like faith, many Christians could learn from you.

Oops, double post.

napajohn said:

This sounds like versions of the Fox experiments and enhancements to his process..for a somewhat detailed critique of this 2 of Gishs impact articles
gives a very excellent critique of this theory.
first of all your scenario of a tidal pool in this environment would expose the protein with UV..since most experiments assume an environment that contains little if any oxygen..the issue of a lack of ozone layer would kill all sun-bathing proteins.

Click to expand...

Nope. I sterilize proteins all the time for cell culture under UV light more intense than outside and the proteins are just fine. Gish should get into the lab a bit more.

the oceans themselves would not even exist in such an environment or would be so hot that life could NOT form and live in it.

Click to expand...

Since protocells form at 700 degrees centigrade at hydrothermal vents and the oceans can't get above 100 degrees C, I don't see a problem.

re: lucaspa one can reasonably assume that the sun 3-4 billion years ago would
have been much bigger than today resulting in a more intense burn .

Click to expand...

No, you can't reasonable assume that. Is that what the criticism is based on? An assumption. Actually, the sun would have been cooler since the fusion reaction would not have been completely geared up yet.

As well as that, one has to account for the conditions these experiments assume..where did the elements even come from...the Big bang theory assumes most of the elements were helium..you have a lot of explaining to do

You are moving the goalposts.
1. Can life arise from non-life by chemical reactions? Yes. The protocells show that it can.
2. Did life in the past arise this way?

Now you want the elements. That has been done. Most matter was hydrogen with less than 25% helium (confirmed by observation, BTW, which supports the Big Bang). Other elements are made by fusion inside of stars. All the elements up to iron are made in ordinary stars (since iron is at the bottom of the energy curve). Higher elements are made in novae and supernovae who scatter their elements into interstellar space when they explode. The sun is a 4th generation star. That means 4 generations of novae and supernovae have run thru the main sequence and exploded prior to the formation of the sun. So there was plenty of all the elements in the interstellar medium when the solar system was formed.

as to where you got the ingredients in this experiment:
as one critic said in Millers experiments."Miller lists “some important biological compounds that do not yet have adequate prebiotic syntheses." Among the list is histidine and lysine.

Click to expand...

Histidine, lysine, and arginine are not formed directly in the Miller-Urey reactions. But that is not the only way to get amino acids and lysine is made by reacting aspartic acid and pyruvate -- two chemicals that are made by the Miller reactions and other sources.

heres the gish links:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-033.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-037.htm

Click to expand...

Let me give just one of the whoppers from Gish, so you can judge the quality of the arguments:
"As a consequence, there is, practically speaking, no tendency for these compounds to form, but, on the other hand, they very readily tend to fall apart or disintegrate. What happens naturally and spontaneously, then, is that proteins break up into their constituent amino acids,"

Do you know how proteins are broken down in the lab, Napajohn? They will keep for years in sterile solutions. No, to break down proteins for amino acid analysis you 1: put the proteins in 50% hydrochloric acid, 2: heat at 110 degrees centigrade for an hour. Or you can put them in 6 N sodium hydroxide and heat for an hour.

Now, nowhere on earth will you find 50% acid. Any acid. Nor will you find that concentration of base.

Gish should know this since he has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I can only conclude that his bias has overwhelmed his integrity.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This...

But changing pre-existant information which already codes every feature of an organism is not a creative force. It can only change an organism's pre-existant information. I thought you were a biologist?

Click to expand...

and...

Still, moving around DNA is not a creative force, nor does it explain how you can get rainforests and human beings from the same microscopic cell. Face it, you live on blind faith, with little to no evidence. It really is admirable to see so much faith in you. It's sort of like a child-like faith, many Christians could learn from you.

Click to expand...

are just stupid semantics.

What is a "creative force?"

Oh come on. If a mutation causes the DNA to code for a different protein that has a novel and beneficial effect on the organism (there are many verified examples of this) how can that not be "creative" or "new information?"

Creationists have gone down the pathetic line of argumentation that whatever happens no matter what cannot be an increase in information even if it has an effect that cause a novel structure of metabolic pathway to occur. They're ridiculous goal post shifting will be the death of them.

BTW the drivel you posted at the end about faith and lack of evidence for evolution does not help your argument - it simply shows the weakness of it by attempting to move away from the science to some ridiculous chariciture of religion.

No, you can't reasonable assume that. Is that what the criticism is based on? An assumption.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, evolutionists know nothing about assumptions.

Can you provide any actual data, or answer any questions, or will you just keep trying to bait?