The definition and value of science

[The Barbarian]

The background hiss could be a leftover impact of the Big Bang or the result of a cosmos-wide or maybe even regional supernatural judgment that came later, how can we possibly know either way?

What matters is that the big bang theory predicted it. Theories are considered to be confirmed when their predictions are confirmed. That's how science works. If one is allowed to insert a non-scriptural miracle to cover over anything one doesn't like about the evidence, then anyone's belief is equally valid.

 

[The Barbarian]

Much that has been assumed to be true and much that the wise of this world have invested so much into constructing will indeed be exposed as folly in time.

Yes. Creationism will have much to answer for at judgement.

 

[Mountainmike]

In essence, he is saying there is no chemistry that shows how abiogenesis could work in practice. It simply does not happen, there are no facts or demonstrable experiments that support it. The credibility of the theory is incredibly shaky and without it, the whole edifice of naturalistic macroevolution is also challenged. If emergence from inanimate matter never produces life then why should we assume naturalistic processes also governed a billion-year process of evolutionary changes? If at any point in the development of life on earth we have to assume supernatural intervention to make it work then naturalism is no longer a sufficient modus operandi beyond the scope of what the scientific method can actually prove.

Indeed.
Also if the chemical events were at all likely (ie bulk statistics were meaningful) then some of the intermediate processes would still be happening. They are not. You can search new and newer volcanic pools and none of the intermediate stages exist. So we really are dealing with one or more extremely unlikely random events.

It is even worse than that. Proponents of chance abiogenesis have to invent a whole new set of -just as unlikely- factors to cope with the lack of continuum in life creation - ie what pulled up the drawbridge and stopped new life if it was ever a likely enough process to happen in the first place? Those who try to use standard association equilibria bulk reactions as some evidence it was not random, like barbarian - clearly miss the issue. Apart from which all equilibria are indeed random processes going both ways!

Which leads to another problem. There is common DNA between most species. If we are to believe the idea there were separate starts to life and no guiding hand, then we would expect different forms of life that diverge. Not just in form but in structure. The argument that "later life" gobbled them all up doesnt wash. Why are they not continuing to produce lower forms of life?
A lot of species still develop separate strands by avoiding predators which existed elsewhere but not in their own ecosystem. (which was one of Darwins theses). So we are dealing with common ancestor which leads back to a single or very few random events in which bulk statistics do not wash.

The quantum chemistry and energy jumps say that the idea that multiple chemicals just happened by lucky proximity to jump into life, did not happen. On the other hand the first living cell was irreducibly complex. Nobody has found a way round that. In information theoretic terms the genome has an entropy. A minimum complexity and size, it cannot be arbitrarily reduced without preventing darwinian evolution..

The "abiogenesis conjecture" which is all it is , the step from no life to life, is not even a valid hypothesis in scientific method (let alone a thoeory_ without a so far unknown structure.
It is not even off first base. Nobody can say what when where or how it happened and the odds against it are staggering.
Repeat. They cannot say what. When. Where. How. Not even a conjectured structure for the first living cell (which needs to be simple enough to have occurred randomly) Abiogenesis is a total blank.

Even high priest dawkins of the atheist faith says he has no idea how it happened. But like all good abiogenecists he goes on to say but it must have been like this < waffle follows> . The proponents of unguided evolution do not see the irony in the fact that all their experiments on say self catalyzing membranes are processes designed and guided by a gang of PHds. They do not just sit and watch a test tube! So they do not even test "unguided" process, which is what they all claim happened!

Reality is nobody knows. The biblical account is both allegorical and lacks detail, so we cannot know how the first cells came to be in detail or indeed what structure they had.

Like eucharistic miracles. Cardiac tissue may just have sprung into existence from non life.

 

[The Barbarian]

Also if the chemical events were at all likely (ie bulk statistics were meaningful) then some of the intermediate processes would still be happening. They are not.

But they are. The Murchison meteorite, for example. The chemical reactions at deep sea vents.

Synthesis of α-amino and α-hydroxy acids under volcanic conditions: implications for the origin of life​

Synthesis of α-amino and α-hydroxy acids under volcanic conditions: implications for the origin of life

Facile synthesis of α-hydroxy and α-amino acids is observed at temperatures from 145 to 280°C with catalytic Ni2+, with cyano ligands as source for C …

www.sciencedirect.com

But unless you have a sterile environment, those chemicals are quickly metabolized by bacteria.

You can search new and newer volcanic pools and none of the intermediate stages exist. So we really are dealing with one or more extremely unlikely random events.

See above. Turns out, chemistry isn't random. Remember?

Which leads to another problem. There is common DNA between most species. If we are to believe the idea there were separate starts to life and no guiding hand, then we would expect different forms of life that diverge.

Probably did. One particular form seems to have won out. Not surprising. Common DNA merely shows common ancestry. We can test that with organisms of known descent, so we know it's a fact. But it turns out, that it's not precisely the same in all organisms. Would you like to learn about that?

The quantum chemistry and energy jumps say that the idea that multiple chemicals just happened by lucky proximity to jump into life, did not happen.

As you learned, it isn't about luck. The universe is organized so as to produce life, as God mentions in Genesis.

On the other hand the first living cell was irreducibly complex.

You know that even Michael Behe now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve. Would you like to learn how? But I'd be interested in seeing your evidence that the first living cell could not be simpler. In general biology doesn't work that way.

In information theoretic terms the genome has an entropy. A minimum complexity and size, it cannot be arbitrarily reduced without preventing darwinian evolution..

Well, that's a testable assumption. Show me a cell with minimum complexity and quantify the information in its genome. Use the Shannon Equation for genomes.

Nobody can say what when where or how it happened and the odds against it are staggering.

Sounds interesting. Show us the odds and your calculations.

It seems that you are now aware that evolution is not about abiogenesis, and does not depend on it. Which is good.

 

[Mountainmike]

But they are. The Murchison meteorite, for example. The chemical reactions at deep sea vents.

Synthesis of α-amino and α-hydroxy acids under volcanic conditions: implications for the origin of life​

Synthesis of α-amino and α-hydroxy acids under volcanic conditions: implications for the origin of life

Facile synthesis of α-hydroxy and α-amino acids is observed at temperatures from 145 to 280°C with catalytic Ni2+, with cyano ligands as source for C …

www.sciencedirect.com

But unless you have a sterile environment, those chemicals are quickly metabolized by bacteria.


See above. Turns out, chemistry isn't random. Remember?



Probably did. One particular form seems to have won out. Not surprising. Common DNA merely shows common ancestry. We can test that with organisms of known descent, so we know it's a fact. But it turns out, that it's not precisely the same in all organisms. Would you like to learn about that?


As you learned, it isn't about luck. The universe is organized so as to produce life, as God mentions in Genesis.

You know that even Michael Behe now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve. Would you like to learn how? But I'd be interested in seeing your evidence that the first living cell could not be simpler. In general biology doesn't work that way.


Well, that's a testable assumption. Show me a cell with minimum complexity and quantify the information in its genome. Use the Shannon Equation for genomes.


Sounds interesting. Show us the odds and your calculations.

It seems that you are now aware that evolution is not about abiogenesis, and does not depend on it. Which is good.

A recurrence of false memes. Amino acids are not life.
A heap of bricks has no bearing on whether self designing houses can exist or how they come to exist.

Back to the real question.
The simplest cells we know of are horrendously complex factories of many thousands of proteins guided by big genomes.
They are not the start of life and can never have been the start of life (for those who think it was chemistry all of which is random chance).

So what are these minimum cells that defy attempts to define or find them?
That are assumed to be likely enough to happen, but not likely enough to happen now?
Show me one. You cannot. You cannot even show me a viable structure for one.
The simplest cell you can show me has hundreds of genes. A massive genome.
Where are all the LIVING intermediates on the way from there to the present cell.

By nasa definition of life (or you can pick another) minium life (so minimum cell, membrane or not) is "self sustaining capable of darwinian evolution". Darwinian evolution needs a genome. Chemical structures to express the genome. An energy source. And so on. without which it cannot "self sustain"

So "abiogenesis" is the step from non living ingredients to that first minimumcell
Hydrogen is not living. It is not complex enough. It has no genome, genome processing, reproductive capabiilty or energy plant.

Do not ask me for the minimum cell. I am not a believer in gradual abiogenesis. I believe at some stage life was created.

You define it. But even two genes have a minimum entropy of 2. They need a host of support mechanisms. So single molecules cannot cut it. The minimum frankenstein ventner managed was hundreds

You seem unaware that the question of life is not just the first cell, but how it came to be our present minimum cells?Most of that journey is assumed to be evolution yet it is completely unknown. It is a far bigger challenge than how a cell came to be a mammal. MOST of the journey is ignored.
It has defied both top down and bottom up thinking..
You are far too simplistic in thinking.

The idea the "first cell happened" then all after that was evolution which is understood is utter nonsense propagated by high priest Dawkins of the atheist faith. He has no evidence whatsoever..

 

[The Barbarian]

A recurrence of false memes. Amino acids are not life.

But they are essential for life. As you now realize they form abiotically, and even short protein molecules can form abiotically. So the Miller-Urey results have been confirmed.

Back to the real question.
The simplest cells we know of are horrendously complex factories of many thousands of proteins guided by big genomes.
They are not the start of life and can never have been the start of life (for those who think it was chemistry all of which is random chance).

As you learned, chemistry is not random. In fact, we see the precursors to living things forming at hydrothermal vents. And it's not just random; it always works that way.

More and more evidence shows God was right; the earth did bring forth living things.

Do not ask me for the minimum cell.

Just checking to see if you were serious. I assume that means we won't see your calculations for the information in a minimum genome?

You seem unaware that the question of life is not just the first cell, but how it came to be our present minimum cells?

What do you think is in a "present minimum cell?" Be specific.

You define it. But even two genes have a minimum entropy of 2.

How do you measure the entropy of a gene? You realize you have to specify alleles, do you not?

I am not a believer in gradual abiogenesis. I believe at some stage life was created.

That's what Darwin wrote. So you're a Darwinian in that respect. O.K. It's possible. Just not very likely, given the evidence.

Most of that journey is assumed to be evolution yet it is completely unknown.

That's a very weak objection. Trying to support a belief on what is not yet known is a very risky business. When I started studying biology, we had no confirmation of Miller-Urey. We weren't aware of how eukaryotic cells had formed, and many other things we now understand.

It is a far bigger challenge than how a cell came to be a mammal.

Yes. Abiogenesis continues to be a difficult field, in spite of many advances in our understanding. As you know, Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. But what we don't know, isn't evidence for anything. You are far too simplistic in your thinking.

The idea the "first cell happened" then all after that was evolution which is understood is utter nonsense propagated by high priest Dawkins of the atheist faith. He has no evidence whatsoever..

What part of common descent after the appearance of cellular life, do you think is not known? Be specific.

 

[FaithT]

Yes. Creationism will have much to answer for at judgement.

I don’t think God will punish us for believing in error. At least not about that.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don’t think God will punish us for believing in error. At least not about that.

I don't blame creationists. I blame the ideology. You're right. Creationists won't be punished for their views on Genesis.

 

[mindlight]

God says it did. I believe Him.

A literal hermeneutic says special creation. You are being very liberal in your interpretations of the text here. Given that the evidence does not compel this, this is not warranted.

Well, let's take a look...

In the 1920s, A.I. Oparin suggested that conditions in the early Earth could produce the organic molecules (like amino acids) necessary for life.

The Miller-Urey experiment, in 1953, verified his prediction.

Amino acids are not life and are a long way from ever becoming life. This was a guided experiment and yet did not result in anything like an irreducibly complex and reproducing cellular organism. So no supporting evidence at all as yet.

In 1969, the Murchson meteorite was found to contain abiotic amino acids, further confirming Oparin's prediction. More than that, the meteorite contains short protein sequences (peptides) of amino acids polymerized together.

About that time it was discovered that the one organelle necessary for cellular life (cell membrane) is the simplest organelle, and will self-assemble from organic molecules to form vesicles.

View attachment 323442
Lipids can form abiotically:
The results indicate that condensation reactions and abiotic synthesis of organic lipid compounds under hydrothermal conditions occur easily, provided precursor concentrations are sufficiently high.

Abiotic Condensation Synthesis of Glyceride Lipids and Wax Esters Under Simulated Hydrothermal Conditions - Discover Life

Precursor compounds for abiotic proto cellular membranes are necessary for the origin of life. Amphipathic compounds such as fatty acids and acyl glycerols are important candidates for micelle/bilayer/vesicle formation. Two sets of experiments were conducted to study dehydration reactions of...

link.springer.com

Again these amino acids are a very long way from being life and in this case, there were questions about contamination. So is that all the evidence you have? Where is the guided experiment that actually produced DNA, RNA, a working genome etc.

You've been badly misled about that. Evolutionary theory assumes life began somehow, but makes no predictions about that. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things. Since macroevolution has now been directly observed, that's not an issue. I think you've confused macroevolution with a consequence of macroevolution (common descent).

Actually, evolutionary theory assumes a naturalistic method which is clearly false in the case of abiogenesis. If abiogenesis was not a purely natural emergence of life from chemicals then why should we assume naturalism guided the broad process in the case of the development of the human brain for example?

As you see, we don't have to make that assumption. Indeed, the evidence and God's word tells us that the universe was already made in such a way as to make the emergence of life inevitable. Perhaps you are unaware that science is only methodologically naturalistic, and does not (in fact cannot) say anything about the supernatural. Can't assert that it exists, and can't deny that it exists. If you want to believe that God created the Earth to bring forth life, I'm with you. If you'd rather just say natural laws happened that way without God, I'd disagree, but science can't help resolve that issue.

And, as you just learned, none of this has anything to do with biological evolution. If you learn nothing else from this discussion, remember that.

God could have created a world where the children of Abraham emerged out of the stones as a result of the laws of chemistry that He instituted. That is not the biblical story and there is no scientific evidence to support that emergence. What God created was good and capable of supporting the life that he planted in it is the way I see it. There are definite acts of creation that characterize the creation story not the spontaneous emergence of life forms as a result of long complex processes that a Deistic God set in motion at the moment of the Big Bang and then just let run to their conclusion.

One big question Mountain Mike asked you about common ancestry is an important barrier to your view here. There seems to be a commonality in the DNA of all life that a single Creator could explain. If abiogenesis happened once we would expect it to occur again as these natural processes are still with us. If it did we should have multiple origin points for different kinds of life but instead, we see a single common source. That is better explained by a Creator than by a naturalistic process that has as yet never been proven to work and if it did work should have set multiple beginning points for the process of evolution on earth.

 

[mindlight]

What matters is that the big bang theory predicted it. Theories are considered to be confirmed when their predictions are confirmed. That's how science works. If one is allowed to insert a non-scriptural miracle to cover over anything one doesn't like about the evidence, then anyone's belief is equally valid.

Again your idea of prediction is to make a theory and then see if it can rationalize an event that was meant to have happened 13 billion years ago. That is an explanatory description, not a prophetic prediction. If you predict the rise of X-men and they start popping up then that is a prediction.

I do not need a theory here but I can still hear the hiss and also observe the red shift that also suggests an expanding universe. I just do not know what it signifies. Considering the paucity of evidence and necessary tools to analyze an event for which there are no possible witnesses, except God, I am not prepared to accept a speculative explanatory model. I hear the hiss but I do not know what it means and suspect that no one else really does either.

 

[mindlight]

I don’t think God will punish us for believing in error. At least not about that.

I think it depends on why we hold the positions we do. An honest man can believe a lie and a dishonest man can proclaim a truth. God sees our hearts and will judge us. For me, I believe in God first and that means reading scripture in a straightforward manner as it is. I am not prepared to reevaluate traditional interpretations that are millennia old unless there is overwhelming evidence to support that shift. That evidence does not exist in this origins debate on Big Bang or Abiogenesis and it is not conclusive in the case of Evolution.

 

[FaithT]

I think it depends on why we hold the positions we do. An honest man can believe a lie and a dishonest man can proclaim a truth. God sees our hearts and will judge us. For me, I believe in God first and that means reading scripture in a straightforward manner as it is. I am not prepared to reevaluate traditional interpretations that are millennia old unless there is overwhelming evidence to support that shift. That evidence does not exist in this origins debate on Big Bang or Abiogenesis and it is not conclusive in the case of Evolution.

Do you believe there Is a dome surrounding the earth? Because I was on Creation.com just a little while ago and they have an article about that. I just skimmed it but I don’t believe it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again your idea of prediction is to make a theory and then see if it can rationalize an event that was meant to have happened 13 billion years ago.

Let's look at your misconception here. Here's a comment from the Institute for Creation Research, which shares your assumptions about creation, but admits:

the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a blackbody. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1).

Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?

Introduction Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin: The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...

www.icr.org

That is an explanatory description, not a prophetic prediction.

Notice even your fellow creationists know better than that. As I showed you earlier, when predictions of the theory are confirmed, that is considered confirmation of the theory.

 

[Sheila Davis]

One more note about abiogenesis -- it happens if God designed for it to happen. A reasonable Christian guess is that since God made the Universe (all creation) "very good" (Genesis chapter 1)... "31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." -- that therefore we should not be even slightly surprised if we discover some future day that simple life forms arise out there in the "very good" creation that God made, which is 'very good' for life! After all, it's His work... His chemistry, His physics, right?

So, it's quite possible that abiogenesis happens out there, if God so designed nature to be good for life not only on Earth alone, but generally.

But Earth is very special, because it's has not only life-favoring chemistry alone in its favor as a home for extensive life, but very many additional favorable conditions that together in total make Earth seem rare and especially favorable to life long term, and that many astronomical observations in the last 20 years are showing are much less common out there among other planets than one might guess. For example, a strong magnetic field that protects us and the atmosphere from degradation from radiation and solar wind and CMEs, along with a just-right amount of surface water to be especially favorable -- with very helpful plate tectonics that help maintain our atmosphere -- and a very nice helpful arrangement of gas giants to both reduce dangerous asteroids heading towards Earth but together mutually cancel out the tendency of a large gas giant (like Jupiter) to tug a smaller planet (like Earth) out of orbit over time, forcing the smaller planet's orbit to migrate out of the habitable zone, and here I've only touched on just a few of the favorable conditions here on Earth that make Earth so good for complex extensive life over lengthy time periods.

Indeed - God told the Earth and the waters to bring forth life _ nowhere in Scripture did he tell the Earth or the waters to cease.

 

[The Barbarian]

A literal hermeneutic says special creation.

A literal hermeneutic says that the earth brought forth living things. That's what God said. You can believe Him or not. That's the choice you have.

Of course, you could argue that Genesis 1 is merely figurative, and God only meant it as metaphor or parable. Is that your argument?

One big question Mountain Mike asked you about common ancestry is an important barrier to your view here. There seems to be a commonality in the DNA of all life that a single Creator could explain.

The problem for creationists is that the endogenous retrovirus remnants in the DNA of jawed vertebrates sorts out according to evolutionary phylogenies. It's difficult to see how such material, the result of ancient viral infections, would be something a Creator would build into genomes, unless that creator was seeking to confuse and mislead us. But it makes perfect sense in light of common descent. There are many other things in DNA that clearly indicate common descent. We'll talk about those in a bit.

If abiogenesis happened once we would expect it to occur again as these natural processes are still with us.

We don't know how many versions of life there were. Only one or two have survived to the present. Since extinction is the fate of all organisms, it's not surprising. It's entirely possible that only one sort of life is feasible on this planet. And as you see, the "errors" in DNA such as endogenous retroviruses and much of the rest of non-coding DNA don't have functions. The L-Gulonolactone oxidase gene in humans is the gene that produces vitamin C. But in humans and other primates, it's broken and doesn't work. Why God would build a defective gene into some animals is an unsolvable difficulty for creationism,but makes perfect sense in light of common descent and evolution.

That is better explained by a Creator than by a naturalistic process that has as yet never been proven to work

As you learned, evolution is observed all around us constantly. Do you remember the scientific definition of biological evolution? I think you're again confusing the observed phenomenon of evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent.

 

[mindlight]

Do you believe there Is a dome surrounding the earth? Because I was on Creation.com just a little while ago and they have an article about that. I just skimmed it but I don’t believe it.

I just read that article which has to do with defining the word used here in Hebrew: rāqîa‘. A great many liberal commentators have used comparative religious studies of the time that they say the scriptures were written to suggest that dome was the best definition of the word. But they get their dating of scripture wrong and its writing and oral traditions predate these cultures. The word is not precisely defined and this flexibility means it is better referred to as expanse. After all, if the sky begins at the tactile frontier of the waters of the ocean does it make any sense to suggest that the air within which we move and which we breathe is solid?

Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?

Is the raqîa‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome?

creation.com

 

[mindlight]

Let's look at your misconception here. Here's a comment from the Institute for Creation Research, which shares your assumptions about creation, but admits:

the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a blackbody. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1).

Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?

Introduction Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin: The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...

www.icr.org

Notice even your fellow creationists know better than that. As I showed you earlier, when predictions of the theory are confirmed, that is considered confirmation of the theory.

Yes, creationist scientists keen to sound scientifically credible have used the word predict to describe how a scientific model can coherently explain observed phenomena and even anticipate those phenomena. But that science has coopted the word predict here when in common usage this means to say something before it happens, is the basic problem. To talk about an event 13 billion years ago as if your theory predicts it is plainly not true as you did not predict it before it happened. Maybe this is just semantics but predict is still the wrong word even if it is widely used in the scientific community.

Did you read this article it raises a very interesting reservation relating to the isotropic properties of this background hiss? That it is so uniform is a problem for the Big Bang theory. Also, there are only really three facts supporting the Big Bang theory which is not enough for any kind of certainty about it. That is the essential reservation here.

Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?

Introduction Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin: The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...

www.icr.org

 

[mindlight]

Indeed - God told the Earth and the waters to bring forth life _ nowhere in Scripture did he tell the Earth or the waters to cease.

Where? Chapter and verse, please.

God says let there be, or let the land produce... That is very different from just starting the creation event and watching a simple emergence according to the preset laws he has established. He creates with a word and there is a specific sequence of actions in the creation account.

 

[mindlight]

A literal hermeneutic says that the earth brought forth living things. That's what God said. You can believe Him or not. That's the choice you have.

Of course, you could argue that Genesis 1 is merely figurative, and God only meant it as metaphor or parable. Is that your argument?


The problem for creationists is that the endogenous retrovirus remnants in the DNA of jawed vertebrates sorts out according to evolutionary phylogenies. It's difficult to see how such material, the result of ancient viral infections, would be something a Creator would build into genomes, unless that creator was seeking to confuse and mislead us. But it makes perfect sense in light of common descent. There are many other things in DNA that clearly indicate common descent. We'll talk about those in a bit.



We don't know how many versions of life there were. Only one or two have survived to the present. Since extinction is the fate of all organisms, it's not surprising. It's entirely possible that only one sort of life is feasible on this planet. And as you see, the "errors" in DNA such as endogenous retroviruses and much of the rest of non-coding DNA don't have functions. The L-Gulonolactone oxidase gene in humans is the gene that produces vitamin C. But in humans and other primates, it's broken and doesn't work. Why God would build a defective gene into some animals is an unsolvable difficulty for creationism,but makes perfect sense in light of common descent and evolution.



As you learned, evolution is observed all around us constantly. Do you remember the scientific definition of biological evolution? I think you're again confusing the observed phenomenon of evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent.

You seem to deliberately misread Genesis to fit it into your own worldview. Try reading it as it is with no preconceptions. God creates by a sequence of special actions.

There is a sufficient variety of conditions on this planet to support different kinds of emergence from the primeval soup but the fact is that commonalities exist within the DNA of all life indicating a singular source. This is inexplicable if you believe in a naturalistic model of abiogenesis. It is interesting that the theory of common ancestry is itself a refutation of the naturalistic assumption that underlies it. If we spontaneously emerged according to the laws of Chemistry then we should be able to trace multiple emergence points. A much better explanation is that the same God created all life and that therefore the commonalities in the code are his signature. A supernatural explanation works here and a purely natural one does not.

Defective genes may be misunderstood or the result of mutations since creation. Mutation is generally regressive and so it is unsurprising that defective genes have been found.

Microevolutionary changes are observable but not the grand theoretical framework of macroevolution which is speculation.

 

[Mountainmike]

But they are essential for life. As you now realize they form abiotically, and even short protein molecules can form abiotically. So the Miller-Urey results have been confirmed.


As you learned, chemistry is not random. In fact, we see the precursors to living things forming at hydrothermal vents. And it's not just random; it always works that way.

More and more evidence shows God was right; the earth did bring forth living things.


Just checking to see if you were serious. I assume that means we won't see your calculations for the information in a minimum genome?


What do you think is in a "present minimum cell?" Be specific.

How do you measure the entropy of a gene? You realize you have to specify alleles, do you not?

That's what Darwin wrote. So you're a Darwinian in that respect. O.K. It's possible. Just not very likely, given the evidence.

That's a very weak objection. Trying to support a belief on what is not yet known is a very risky business. When I started studying biology, we had no confirmation of Miller-Urey. We weren't aware of how eukaryotic cells had formed, and many other things we now understand.


Yes. Abiogenesis continues to be a difficult field, in spite of many advances in our understanding. As you know, Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. But what we don't know, isn't evidence for anything. You are far too simplistic in your thinking.


What part of common descent after the appearance of cellular life, do you think is not known? Be specific.

Sure amino acids are needed. They are not life. Computers use copper. The existence of copper does Not prove Computers self designed ot even exist. So your argument is a straw man.

Read my last post and answer the real questions.

For life to start the minimum cell had to be very simple to have any chance of being possible in random chance terms.
even supposing that happened
( nobody can say when where or how and it is staggeringly unlikely, the more complex the more unlikely)
there is a massive gulf between that and our minimum known cells which are chemical production lines of hundreds or thousands of proteins with a genome controlling including many bases.

If abiogenesis is likely enough to happen what stopped it?
if the ongoing evolution to our minimum known cell happened where are the intermediates. Why are the intermediate processes not ongoing?
if It can all happen unguided why are teams of phds needed to guide experiments that still fail to explain any of it?

abiogenetecists not only need to invent a fanciful idea on how it all came to be with no evidence,
they need an equally fanciful conjecture to say why life creation stopped.

The journey to present cells from an irreducibly complex first cell is just as big a problem as the unlikelihood of the first minimum life.

There is literally nothing but conjecture.
most of it is atheist wishful thinking.
It had to be unguided random abiogenesis because there is no other possibility like God.
atheism is a faith.