proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

And ignored the other link I provided entirely, which provided an ALTERNATIVE chemical for the function of citrate. My original source also was talking about looking for an alternative chemical for this function, so why ignore it?.

i actually quoted from it:

"The influence of citrate on the structure and function of ribozymes is unclear. It is important to determine this influence, as most catalytic RNAs depend on Mg2+ ions, and the catalytic function of RNAs is fundamental for RNA world organisms. Furthermore, complete, prebiotically plausible syntheses of nucleosides are yet to be demonstrated. The ribozyme-catalyzed polymerization of activated nucleotides is far from being efficient enough for self-replication, and it is not yet clear how the products of RNA polymerization, highly stable RNA double strands, can dissociate and re-fold to form catalytically active RNAs."

what are you talking about? Abiogenesis experiments have already shown that the presence of various gasses in the air, combined with a range of environmental conditions, will produce nucleotides, which chemically link together to form RNA. It is a naturally occurring molecule.

so why we cant find it anywere on earth apart from the lab?

or as chemist robert shapiro put it:

“It started out with the idea that life itself had to begin with such a replicator [of genetic information],” Shapiro said. “The odds against [RNA forming on its own] are astronomical.”

"
While chemists have succeeded in making the molecules of life — or their components — in the lab out of simpler molecules, Shapiro said the tightly controlled processes in a chemistry lab can’t be mistaken for what would have happened on the early Earth.

“Any abiotically prepared replicator before the start of life is a fantasy,” Shapiro said.


NYU chemist Robert Shapiro decries RNA-first possibility

 

[Audacious]

i actually quoted from it:

"The influence of citrate on the structure and function of ribozymes is unclear. It is important to determine this influence, as most catalytic RNAs depend on Mg2+ ions, and the catalytic function of RNAs is fundamental for RNA world organisms. Furthermore, complete, prebiotically plausible syntheses of nucleosides are yet to be demonstrated. The ribozyme-catalyzed polymerization of activated nucleotides is far from being efficient enough for self-replication, and it is not yet clear how the products of RNA polymerization, highly stable RNA double strands, can dissociate and re-fold to form catalytically active RNAs."





so why we cant find it anywere on earth apart from the lab?

or as chemist robert shapiro put it:

“It started out with the idea that life itself had to begin with such a replicator [of genetic information],” Shapiro said. “The odds against [RNA forming on its own] are astronomical.”

"
While chemists have succeeded in making the molecules of life — or their components — in the lab out of simpler molecules, Shapiro said the tightly controlled processes in a chemistry lab can’t be mistaken for what would have happened on the early Earth.

“Any abiotically prepared replicator before the start of life is a fantasy,” Shapiro said.


NYU chemist Robert Shapiro decries RNA-first possibility

This is an unpopular view among scientists, and Shapiro hardly demonstrates the current scientific consensus on this matter.

One guy can think it -- even one expert -- but that doesn't mean they're right. Even some experts have ridiculous opinions.

 

[xianghua]

A robot's not a living thing. You are aware of that, are you not?

im talking about a self replicating robot.

 

[Belk]

I think it's because it is a belief system. In the beginning someone did not believe the biblical account of creation. There had to be another explanation for life on this planet and they began to look for it. It started out as a belief. They did not believe in scripture and believed something else. Once they came upon the theory all the rest is history as they say. It became an established assumption.

So your answer on why every scientific and academic institution accepts evolution as science is that it is a belief system? That somehow a bunch of people independently came up with similar theories. Then they managed to convince a society steeped in biblical belief that this false idea was true? Somehow this false belief has managed to not only become the predominant theory that underpins every biological science but to withstand every competing theory for 150+ years?

That strains credulity to the breaking point.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i actually quoted from it:

"The influence of citrate on the structure and function of ribozymes is unclear. It is important to determine this influence, as most catalytic RNAs depend on Mg2+ ions, and the catalytic function of RNAs is fundamental for RNA world organisms. Furthermore, complete, prebiotically plausible syntheses of nucleosides are yet to be demonstrated. The ribozyme-catalyzed polymerization of activated nucleotides is far from being efficient enough for self-replication, and it is not yet clear how the products of RNA polymerization, highly stable RNA double strands, can dissociate and re-fold to form catalytically active RNAs."

While also neglecting to acknowledge the parts that don't support you. This source states that other molecules we are already aware of could take the place of citrate, but you keep refusing to address that. Why do you keep refusing to address that? Why are you ignoring the fact that whether or not citrate was present in the prebiotic environment is contested, with neither side having sufficient evidence to be in the lead?

so why we cant find it anywere on earth apart from the lab?

2 major reasons:
1. Earth billions of years ago had a significantly different environment from what we have today, so it makes sense that a chemical process that happened in that environment wouldn't necessarily happen in the modern one.
2. Protocells are made of molecules modern living cells like to consume, and have no defenses against being consumed by modern cells. So, even if they can form somewhere on this planet hypothetically, they'd be consumed before they could amount to much.

or as chemist robert shapiro put it:

“It started out with the idea that life itself had to begin with such a replicator [of genetic information],” Shapiro said. “The odds against [RNA forming on its own] are astronomical.”

Ah yes, Robert Shapiro, he's famous for promoting the "metabolism first" hypothesis of abiogenesis. That is, he ain't a creationist. Sadly, he was no longer active in research by the time Jack Szostak was starting his experiment, and died 2 years before the results of said experiment were published. Your quote comes from 2008, a few years before it was discovered that segments of RNA as short as 3 nucleotides could have catalytic properties. So, his position is a bit dated, and the man has been dead for 6 years.

While chemists have succeeded in making the molecules of life — or their components — in the lab out of simpler molecules, Shapiro said the tightly controlled processes in a chemistry lab can’t be mistaken for what would have happened on the early Earth.

“Any abiotically prepared replicator before the start of life is a fantasy,” Shapiro said.


NYU chemist Robert Shapiro decries RNA-first possibility

Yeah, what I said before applies here.

 

[TLK Valentine]

im talking about a self replicating robot.

Ask it, not us, and you'll have your answer.

 

[xianghua]

ok. you made too many topics at once so i will focus at 2 of them as start.

Yes. Show me a literal robot which evolved by natural processes. You can't.

so if by your criteria a robot that evolve naturally isnt a robot, you actually saying that an object that is identical to a robot (a robot that evolve naturally) isnt a robot. see the problem? also remember that all motor we are know about are the product of design. so the burdon of proof is on the evolutionery side to prove that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design.

The question should be: if we find a self-replicating organism on another planet that we're able to reproduce, can we conclude that it's the product of design?

Please don't dodge this time, actually answer the question.

see above. the answer is yes. since there is no proof that a motor can evolve naturally. just a belief.

No, you have not shown that no one can detect bad design.

yes i did. again; evolutionists were wrong about the backward retina (and other things too). so they cant detect a bad design. very simple. otherwise i can claim that this is a bad design too:

Spare tire - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

so a self replicating car can evolve a gps system by variation or not? its seems that you dont have a clear answer.

A self replicating car doesn't exist. That's my answer.

If you want to look at evolution as applied to artificial objects, then I suggest reading up on evolutionary algorithms as used in industrial design and engineering. There are real-world examples of evolutionary processes coming up with unexpected results, such as the evolution of the radio example I previously linked. Did you read it?

But continually talking about fictional things like self-replicating cars, robots, watches, widgets, flibberty-gibbets and whatchamacallits isn't getting us anywhere. You're just repeating the same fallacious arguments like a broken record.

 

[xianghua]

Possibly. If it produced viable offspring with the possibility of mutations, it could be subject to natural selection. There’s no predicting exactly what changes would take place, but it is possible to conceive of environmental pressures that would drive the cars’ evolution into something like an airplane.

thanks. but the problem is there is no stepwise from one complex system to another one. for instance: if we want to add a sonar system it will need at least several parts at once. or even more simple: the car itself cant evolve stpwise since it need at least several parts like wheels and engine and a chassis. so it cant evolve stepwise.

 

[xianghua]

First, what are these theories, and how do they explain the biological facts? Second, there are no self-replicating robots, so the question is probably irrelevant.

are you sure? do you think that a robot that is similar to human can be consider as robot, even if it will has a self replicating system?

 

[xianghua]

While also neglecting to acknowledge the parts that don't support you. This source states that other molecules we are already aware of could take the place of citrate, but you keep refusing to address that. Why do you keep refusing to address that?

basically because it's just a belief. and there is still a debate over this belief even today:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00325

"Despite decades of research, how life began on Earth remains one of the most challenging scientific conundrums facing modern science"


Sonochemical Synthesis: Did Life Originate Inside Collapsing Bubbles? | American Council on Science and Health

"The origin of life is a profound mystery. Once life arose, natural selection and evolution took over, but the question of how a mixture of various gases created life-giving molecules that arranged into structures capable of reproducing themselves remains unanswered"

1. Earth billions of years ago had a significantly different environment from what we have today, so it makes sense that a chemical process that happened in that environment wouldn't necessarily happen in the modern one.

again: just a belief with more problems:

"For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

 

[Skreeper]

thanks. but the problem is there is no stepwise from one complex system to another one. for instance: if we want to add a sonar system it will need at least several parts at once. or even more simple: the car itself cant evolve stpwise since it need at least several parts like wheels an engine and a chassis. so it cant evolve stepwise.

I see you're still going with your ridiculous analogies. I was hoping that you'd eventually stop with this madness, but maybe I should've prayed for it...

 

[Aman777]

Punishment for an evil word? How man evil words will you be punished for in the end?

None, since Jesus died to pay for my sins. The evil word "evolution" is used as a godless scientific word since godless scientists have REJECTED God's Truth in Genesis. The brain wash little children into believing their incomplete and untrue Lies and they offend them about their faith in Jesus, usually referring to God's Truth as Myth. Jesus tells us of their increased punishment for offending little ones.

Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

He continues by detailing the event which will surely happen to them for this sin and He repeats this Three times:

Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Beware what you say to little ones about the Lies of Evolution.

 

[Aman777]

Well, when the 800-pound gorilla known as Rome is breathing down your neck, and your God is lying bleeding in the dirt, one can't be faulted for a little lip service.

Fret not, however -- God forgave those Jews just as he forgave the Romans who did the Crucifixion itself. Luke 23:34

Jesus forgives EVERYBODY with the Gift of saving Faith which only comes from the Father. Eph 2:8 All you have to do is fool God the Trinity into granting that Gift to an unbeliever. Both Jew and Roman share the guilt which comes from Humankind murdering our own God. It's proof of the depravity of all Humans. The only thing good about us is our Faith and some of us don't even have that. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

This sounds like classic fundamentalist dogma. The Bible was never intended to be understood as a "science" book.

Depends on your interpretation which is obviously flawed. God's Truth is TRUE to every discovery of Science IF you have the proper understanding.

*** Look: the reality is that most Christians accept evolution. The issue is not one of us compromising theology, it is of you compromising truth.

How do you know who is or who is not a Christian? Jesus tells us that no one knows:

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Are you saying that you know more than Jesus?

 

[TLK Valentine]

None, since Jesus died to pay for my sins. The evil word "evolution" is used as a godless scientific word since godless scientists have REJECTED God's Truth in Genesis. The brain wash little children into believing their incomplete and untrue Lies and they offend them about their faith in Jesus, usually referring to God's Truth as Myth. Jesus tells us of their increased punishment for offending little ones.

No doubt they'll be forgiven with a quickie deathbed conversion...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Jesus forgives EVERYBODY with the Gift of saving Faith which only comes from the Father.

But Jesus is the Son...

Eph 2:8 All you have to do is fool God the Trinity into granting that Gift to an unbeliever. Both Jew and Roman share the guilt which comes from Humankind murdering our own God. It's proof of the depravity of all Humans. The only thing good about us is our Faith and some of us don't even have that. Amen?

Right -- so God forgave the Jews, regardless of whether or not you do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Depends on your interpretation which is obviously flawed. God's Truth is TRUE to every discovery of Science IF you have the proper understanding.

That, as always, would be your understanding, correct? God kept the truths hidden not only until science could catch up, but until you arrived to explain the science properly.

*** Look: the reality is that most Christians accept evolution. The issue is not one of us compromising theology, it is of you compromising truth.

How do you know who is or who is not a Christian? Jesus tells us that no one knows:

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Are you saying that you know more than Jesus?

Aren't you?

 

[HiEv]

so if by your criteria a robot that evolve naturally isnt a robot, you actually saying that an object that is identical to a robot (a robot that evolve naturally) isnt a robot. see the problem?

Yes, I see the problem. The problem is with your argument.

First of all, if it's identical to a robot, then it's a robot, thus couldn't have evolved naturally, because robots don't do that.

Second of all, your fanciful, naturally-occurring, identical-to-a-robot-but-somehow-not-a-robot doesn't exist.

You can make the argument from unicorns all you want, but until you have evidence of actual unicorns, all you've got is a bunch of assumptions you can't prove.

also remember that all motor we are know about are the product of design. so the burdon of proof is on the evolutionery side to prove that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design.

That's totally untrue.

First of all, we have evidence of the bacterial flagellum as a motor which is not the product of top-down design by an intelligent designer. We've demonstrated how it could have arisen through completely natural processes, and nobody has demonstrated that it occurred any other way.

Second of all, you don't merely get to assume design via. a hasty generalization. Even if motors which we know were made by humans, were made by humans, that does not mean that we get to assume that all motors are the product of humans.

You're trying to claim victory without having to put in any effort to produce actual evidence that the bacterial flagellum was indeed designed or that there is some intelligent designer for it. But that's not how evidence works. If you want to prove something, you can't merely assume it or declare you have it by fiat.

Even if we didn't have evidence for how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved naturally (which we do have), all that would get you is "we don't know how it came to be like that."

You can't turn ignorance into knowledge. You don't get to say, "I don't know, therefore goddidit." In no way is that valid reasoning, and all that leads to is an ever-shrinking "God of the gaps".

So where is your evidence that it actually was designed? Where is this designer? How did the designer create this? These are all questions which have not been answered with the kind of objective, scientific evidence which would make creationism a valid conclusion.

see above. the answer is yes. since there is no proof that a motor can evolve naturally. just a belief.

Sure there is. You being unaware of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

For example, there are cilia, which are simplified flagella:

And then there are Type III secretion systems (T3SS), which are like simplified cilia, which are used as needles by bacteria to poke other cells:

And if you take a look at the needle structure of the Type III secretion system, you can see just how similar it is to the structure of the flagellum:

So if this isn't evidence that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved naturally from analogous structures, I'm curious about what you think would count as evidence for you.

yes i did. again; evolutionists were wrong about the backward retina (and other things too).

No they weren't, as I demonstrated in the exact comment you're replying to.

so they cant detect a bad design. very simple.

Apparently I can't repeat this enough, but even if you had been right (you weren't, since the quote you referred to was about blind spots, and I brought up many other issues you totally ignored), being wrong in one specific instance cannot and does not prove that they are wrong in all instances.

I've explained this to you repeatedly, and all you do is ignore my points and repeat the same invalid point you made earlier.

otherwise i can claim that this is a bad design too:

Spare tire - Wikipedia

You're literally repeating yourself with arguments I've previously disposed of, right down the the completely unnecessary picture and link to what a spare tire is. So, since you can't be bothered to make an original argument, here's my entirely unoriginal response that I gave you the last time you said this:

You've been handed an example of bad design. You've utterly failed to explain it in your framework. This is just an attempt to ignore it.

Also, I'm neither an alien nor a moron. You don't need to link me to a Wikipedia article on what a spare tire is.

Having a spare tire isn't "bad design", since there is a use for a spare tire. On the other hand, having wiring in your car that goes from the battery, all the way back to the muffler, and then back up to the headlights next to the battery in the front of the car, most certainly would be an example of bad design. This is because there is no utility in wasting that much wire or making the headlight more prone to failure due to increasing the number of places where that wire could break. That wire is bad design in exactly the same way as the recurrent laryngeal nerve is when it goes from brain to larynx via the heart.

You have yet to respond to that point, other than by making vague assumptions that this circuitous route must have some utility, while utterly failing to actually demonstrate any such utility.

Seriously, if all you can do is repeat arguments which I've already disputed the validity of, without even attempting to rebut my points about why those arguments are wrong, why even bother responding in the first place? Frankly, it's insulting.

 

[Astrophile]

Well, there are nonscientific theories which tried to explain the facts of biology, such as Lysenkoism and Lamarckism. They were falsifiable scientific hypotheses, at least, but utterly failed as science because the evidence did not support them.

Does that count?

But they were still theories of evolution, in which living things changed by descent with modification and in which all living things were descended from a common ancestor. They differed from Darwinism in that the changes that led to evolution were a consequence of the environment rather than being random variations, but they were still evolutionary theories.

So far as I know, the only non-evolutionary naturalistic theories of biology were those of spontaneous generation of complex living things from inanimate matter, as proposed by Aristotle - Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia - and the idea of Empedocles (5th century BC), in which parts of bodies appeared from the elements and joined together, but the products only survived when they were well adapted to each other - Empedocles - Wikipedia