Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because 'evolution' is what Creationists call anything that disagrees with creationism. I get it now.
Why not? He invented it for this context. Would you deny Huxley the ability to define "agnostic"? Shouldn't Einstein have been able to define "relativity"?b
What Darwin made clear in the quote is that the origin of the first cell was excluded. Evolution works after the first life and it doesn't matter how the first cell got here: by chemistry or God zapping it into existence by miracle. Once that first cell exists, then evolution will produce the diversity of species and the designs we see in living organisms.
The researchers working on the origin of the first cell did call them "proto-cells". They did so to distinguish them from modern cells. Similarly, proteins made abiotically by thermal polymerization are sometimes called "proteinoids". It's just a convenient label to know exactly what we are talking about.
Read the websites I posted. Yes, we have made a cell. What scientists are now doing is trying to make a cell with directed protein synthesis.
And it's neither evolution nor creation research. It's abiogenesis. It's chemistry.
It appears that you too think evolution = atheism. So you seem to think that the research is either atheism or "creation research". That's really, really, poor Christianity. It's playing right into the hands of militant atheists and represents one of the biggest dangers to Christianity today.
While the fruit flies preferred to mate with those of the same diet they could still mate (and did just less often than normal) from the other group which means reproductive isolation didn't occur. They were still the same species just on a different diet. I guess this is the best scientist can come up with.In terms of fruit flies, humans have followed natural selection in the production of new species:
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980 Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures
2. D Dodd. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311, 1989. JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie Got new species on different diets: starch vs maltose. 52 generations
Notice in #2 that the flies are no longer "fruit" flies. They can't eat fruit anymore. They are "potato" (the source of starch) or "malt" flies.
Have you ever read Origin of Species? In it Darwin is very clear that the origin of the first cell is NOT part of the theory. This is the relevant passage:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Notice that Darwin is perfectly happy to have God zap the first cell into existence by miracle. Evolution happens after the first life comes into being.
You may interpret it to mean this, but Darwin does not mention a cell... much less the first cell...anywhere.
WHAT have you been reading? The Modern Synthesis, or neo-Darwinism (what you call the "synthetic theory") was not not the "death of darwinism". Instead, it reinforced Darwinism because it synthesized Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory: Synthetic Theory of Evolution
Nope. Genetics officially killed TOE when it could not be reconciled with the facts of genetics, and so the Synthesis was called. On that day, on the east coast somewhere (I can't remember where) when these guys got together, spear-headed by Mayr I believe, these prominent biologists came up with what you now call the modern synthesis and put together their formula for success. TOE died, and even though the synthesis tries to resurrect evolutionary dogma, the UNDOCTORED facts of nature do not lend themselves to unwarranted and illegitimate evolutionary assumptions.
Even if we grant that God just made one, original, first cell...the facts of nature dictate militantly against life ever getting off the ground. Studying the FACTS of microbiology and protein activity demonstrates this enough to conclude that TOE is mismanagement of those facts, to the point of being criminal.
Because of what Darwin wrote, when people state this, I always know that they are really arguing the atheism vs theism debate, and not arguing about evolution. You are saying that there is a "gap" between non-living matter and living cells. You insert God into that "gap" and say evolution is dead, because you mistakenly think evolution = atheism. Evolution is not atheism. Proof of that is that there are so many Christian evolutionists here in this forum. Look at my faith icon, for example.
No, not really. I have christian friends that believed in evolution too, until I showed them the facts of nature aside from the illegitimate and unwarranted assumptions that evolutionists teach as fact when they are not facts, they are only assumptions. The more mysteries of biology that are discovered, the more TOE recedes into the darkness of ignorant blind faith, not a fact-based faith. It is not about atheism vs theism, it is about the FACTS taught as facts, and not assumptions being taught to our children as facts, and so giving them the impression that evolution is viable. It is not, and with enough factual evidence shown to you, I am confident that you will renounce it also.
Now, what were the secondary causes God used to create life from non-life? We know of at least one way for life to arise from non-living chemicals. It's been done. Start with these websites and then you and I can discuss it in more detail:
The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621
As you can see, I've done this before.
No biggie...I have also done this before, and you also will lose.
First, if I didn't engage my brain and ask some very basic questions, I would also believe these articles...but I do.
Second, these experiments are conducted in environments and with optically purified "nutrients" that are not possible in nature. Therefore, this discussion (the Harbinger) fails.
Third, Fox has been discredited now for years, I am very surprised that you even bring him up...unless you are not up-to-speed on the latest science on the subject. Evolutionary scientists are still trying to create a viable "protocell" (which is NOT a cell by any means), and they keep trying because what Fox came up with doesn't work...basically a "soap bubble" - that is no where near containing the seeds of life.
Forth, another problem, unless it has been solved recently without my hearing about it, is the fact that amino acids originate from some form of life that already existed. Therefore, you cannot have amino acids in a world of non-living creatures...
Because of time constraints...we'll just go here...
Protocell Research: on the Verge of. . . a Dead End
For a quick summary, when a solution of amino acids are heated (either in a tidal pool under the sun or at a hydrothermal vent), they polymerize to form proteins. The proteins, in turn, spontaneously form cells. These cells have the 4 characteristics that, together, define something as alive:
1. Metabolism (both breaking down chemicals for energy and building up larger chemicals from simpler building blocks).
2. Growth
3. Response to stimuli
4. Reproduction.
God created the first cell by chemistry, not miracle.
Wrong again.
You have a number of chicken-and-egg problems here that the all powerful evolutionary paradigm do not, and cannot, fix. Where did the first amino acids come from (all of them that are required for a living cell)? What your article calls a protein is not a protein, but random polypeptides to which we are never told about...except that they are "proteins." When you do more research on the matter, you will find out that none of these "proteins" are recognized AS proteins we know today. We have cataloged over 10,000 full proteins at PIR which can be easily accessed in the protein research database...and not one of them appear in any "protocell" experiment. A random polypeptide is NOT a protein. The difference between the two is specificity...and a random polypeptide has none.
Proteins, despite your article and your claim, do not form cells...not even protocells. You do understand that the cell membrane is constructed out of phospholipid molecules? Phospholipids are only created from processes within the cell...so without an already viable, living cell, you do not have the lipids which construct a cell. Certain proteins are found within the cell membrane as gate-keepers, but they do not make up the majority of the membrane, and none of these specific proteins are EVER mentioned in papers claiming protocell genesis (why...because they are never the right ones necessary for life).
Good luck.
Evolution explains the origin of new species.
Actually, it tries to, but fails.
LOL! Sorry. I shouldn't have laughed, but, you see, natural selection and artificial selection are the same thing! Again, have you read Origin of Species? "natural" selection, Darwin makes clear, is the same thing that happens with "artificial" selection, except that in artificial selection it is humans doing the selecting while in "natural" selection it is nature.
Same process, but different selectors. So if you say natural selection can do everything artificial selection can, then you are admitting evolution. Humans have used artificial selection to get new species and even a new genus! So you have just "proved" evolution. Thank you.
Interesting, I thought evolutionists gave this up years ago! So, you are basically stating that nature has a mind...you are deifying nature into a consciousness that shapes organisms with certain goals in mind. Are you sure you hold to christian doctrine?
Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.
Actually, it is NOT a whole new genus, it is an adaptation combining other adaptations from the same original plant. You can cross a bison with a cow because they are the same basic animal, just like you can cross a reindeer with a moose and get viable offspring...because they are the same basic animal, only variations of the original kind.
Evolutionists like to play the "genus" card when it suits their purposes, yet when the creationist plays the same card, suddenly there is no codified definition of species. That has always intrigued me and caused a lot of chuckling...
They can't answer this question so they exclude it from the discussion claiming it to be a separate issue. Evolution is about origins. It doesn't make sense that the origin of the first cell should be excluded from the discussion. People have no concept of billions of years of time and so evolution can be made to sound like a possibility if just given enough time, despite the statistical impossibility. They cannot use this to explain away the idea of everything from nothing, the creation of life from nonlife, or the evolution of the ability of that first life to reproduce itself in the first generation. Instead, they will turn to strawman arguments, claim abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, claim creationists are ignorant of science or the processes of evolution, everything but address the lack of evidence.
What man has proven with artificial selection is selection clearly has it's limits. Both the fruit fly experiments as well as Kentucky Derby horses are examples of it's limits. We agree natural selection has no more power than man's selection.
Evolution works after the first life and it doesn't matter how the first cell got here: by chemistry or God zapping it into existence by miracle. Once that first cell exists, then evolution will produce the diversity of species and the designs we see in living organisms.
Read the websites I posted. Yes, we have made a cell. What scientists are now doing is trying to make a cell with directed protein synthesis.
And it's neither evolution nor creation research. It's abiogenesis. It's chemistry.
Actually, it hasn't been proven that artificial selection has its limits. New species of fruit fly have been produced by natural selection. Did you note the paper I referenced of a new genus with several new species?
Humans simply haven't been doing artificial selection that long and they impose limits: sheep must still be sheep, pigeons must still be pigeons. In the case of dogs, the process has gone on long enough and the types of "breeds" are so diversified that there are now four species (at least) of dogs.
Remember, the only biological reality is "species". Higher taxa are simply groups of species. So, once you have speciation (either by natural or artificial selection), then getting more and more diversification is simply multiple speciation events thru time. See the diagram (it's the only one) in Origin of Species.
In terms of fruit flies, humans have followed natural selection in the production of new species:
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980 Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures
2. D Dodd. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311, 1989. JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie Got new species on different diets: starch vs maltose. 52 generations
Notice in #2 that the flies are no longer "fruit" flies. They can't eat fruit anymore. They are "potato" (the source of starch) or "malt" flies.
The whole thread is a rerun of several previous threads. Creationists just never learn but keep repeating the same old falsified claims again and again despite the evidence refuting them.
I notice no one is talking about the information in the websites I posted. Care to be the first?
In the second, forced mating also produced sterile offspring. For fruit flies, different diets mean more than different tastes. They mean major structural changes in the mouth parts and changes in the digestive enzymes.
So what? added appendages do not correlate to new species.
I see that you also decided not to discuss the abiogenesis references.
I didn't, so here's some questions for you...
The human male reproductive system has 27 parts, and the human female counter-part system has 23 parts, and the system does not work when any of these systems are missing. You have here an irreducibly complex system that TOE must account for, or TOE looses.
All of these parts have specific functions in order to accomplish the goal of reproduction. They must all be perfectly organized and situated with the other parts in order to work properly or the entire system fails (the reproductive system is irreducibly complex).
How many genes code for all these different parts? How many mutations (ARC genetic changes) would it have taken to build this marvelous machinery of the male sex organ?
What kind of selection pressure would have been exerted upon this poor creature to go from asexual to sexual?
How in the world did this particular organism maintain itself in the face of such pressure for thousands of years no, hundreds of thousands of years (maybe a million or so) in order for it to piece together this system of sex?
How in the world did the testes originate via mutations (Accidental Random Chance genetic changes)?
The testes have to be at a specific temperature range in order to be able to generate viable sperm, so how did the organism know that the testes had to be in a scrotum (outside the body) in order for them to be able to produce viable sperm?
How did it even know what sperm was?
How did the ductus deferens know where to wind around to eventually meet with the ampulla or the seminal vesicle (and what they were)?
How could the ampulla or ductus deferens even be created, much less find their way to each other, through ARC mutations?
Why was the seminal vesicle or ampulla even necessary (evolutionarily speaking)?
How did all of these come together?
[FONT="]Where did the corpora cavernosa come from and how did it just happen that it was constructed so as to fill with blood to cause the penis to go erect?
For that matter, how could evolutionary processes know that the penis would need to go erect?
[/FONT] But lets look at another scenario, the human female counterpart, (suspensory ligaments, mesovarium, ovaries, uterine tube, ovarian ligament, body of uterus, fundus of uterus, fimbriae, follicle, vagina, cervix, fornix, perimetrium, myometrium, endometrium) not to mention the eggs.
In the same tune, how did all of these parts just know how to fit all together in the construction that would enable them all to work together for a common but specific goal of reproduction?
And, as with the male counterpart, how could ARC changes possibly make anything as perfectly arranged as the male or female reproductive system?
What is even more impossible and improbable (and goes against commonsense logic), is the assumption that both male and female sexual organs could have come about simultaneously in the same genetic population.
[FONT="]Greater still is the unjustified assumption that these two widely different organs fit one another in hand in glove fashion, due to random chance accidents. [/FONT]
That is actually a lot of questions, but I look forward to your response.
So what? added appendages do not correlate to new species.
I didn't, so here's some questions for you...
The human male reproductive system has 27 parts, and the human female counter-part system has 23 parts, and the system does not work when any of these systems are missing. You have here an irreducibly complex system that TOE must account for, or TOE looses.
All of these parts have specific functions in order to accomplish the goal of reproduction. They must all be perfectly organized and situated with the other parts in order to work properly or the entire system fails (the reproductive system is irreducibly complex).
How many genes code for all these different parts? How many mutations (ARC genetic changes) would it have taken to build this marvelous machinery of the male sex organ?
What kind of selection pressure would have been exerted upon this poor creature to go from asexual to sexual?
How in the world did this particular organism maintain itself in the face of such pressure for thousands of years no, hundreds of thousands of years (maybe a million or so) in order for it to piece together this system of sex?
How in the world did the testes originate via mutations (Accidental Random Chance genetic changes)?
The testes have to be at a specific temperature range in order to be able to generate viable sperm, so how did the organism know that the testes had to be in a scrotum (outside the body) in order for them to be able to produce viable sperm?
How did it even know what sperm was?
How did the ductus deferens know where to wind around to eventually meet with the ampulla or the seminal vesicle (and what they were)?
How could the ampulla or ductus deferens even be created, much less find their way to each other, through ARC mutations?
Why was the seminal vesicle or ampulla even necessary (evolutionarily speaking)?
How did all of these come together?
[FONT="]Where did the corpora cavernosa come from and how did it just happen that it was constructed so as to fill with blood to cause the penis to go erect?
For that matter, how could evolutionary processes know that the penis would need to go erect?
[/FONT]But lets look at another scenario, the human female counterpart, (suspensory ligaments, mesovarium, ovaries, uterine tube, ovarian ligament, body of uterus, fundus of uterus, fimbriae, follicle, vagina, cervix, fornix, perimetrium, myometrium, endometrium) not to mention the eggs.
In the same tune, how did all of these parts just know how to fit all together in the construction that would enable them all to work together for a common but specific goal of reproduction?
And, as with the male counterpart, how could ARC changes possibly make anything as perfectly arranged as the male or female reproductive system?
What is even more impossible and improbable (and goes against commonsense logic), is the assumption that both male and female sexual organs could have come about simultaneously in the same genetic population.
[FONT="]Greater still is the unjustified assumption that these two widely different organs fit one another in hand in glove fashion, due to random chance accidents. [/FONT]
That is actually a lot of questions, but I look forward to your response.
Even more amazing is that these organs would have had to have "evolved" in the first generation. I am amazed at such faith that can accept all these improbabilities, if only given enough time.
Is this another creationist quote mine? Mayr's original talk can be found here BOTANY ONLINE: Ernst MAYR: Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought I have highlighted you quote in red.Before we do, however, I want to give you a very important and revealing quote from the "Grand Old Man of Evolution" (Ernst Mayr)...
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws [of nature] and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain. [7] (Emphasis and interjection mine.) [FONT="]Darwins Influence on Modern Thought[/FONT][FONT="], Scientific American, July 2000, p. 80[/FONT]
Ernst is basically stating that TOE is NOT amendable to the normal parameters of scientific inquiry - laws of nature, like those guiding and controlling physics and chemistry. He is stating that TOE is made up of "historical narratives" where a biologist tries telling a story of how he thinks evolution worked in any given scenario.
Mayr is to be commended (if he was still alive), he is one of few evolutionists to "come out of the closet" and admit that TOE is not amendable to scientific scrutiny.
So what? added appendages do not correlate to new species.
"species" are artifacts. They do not exist except as a man-made concept. Their boundaries between organisms are hazy enough when we look at the organisms alive at any one time: the problem is immeasurably theoretical when we must make that decision over long expanses of time. In short, this is a question of definition. To rephrase, added appendages correlate to new species if we name the organism with added appendages a new species.
The categorization doesn't matter. To use an analogy I can line up 5 cups of coffee each with a slightly greater amount of sugar in each. If you taste them in order you would not be able to tell one coffee from the next (if I structure the experiment correctly.) However you would clearly say that the last is different from the first.
Evolution posits that organisms change the same way over time. When they are sufficiently different human beings categorize them as different species. The organisms don't care about that.
I didn't, so here's some questions for you...
The human male reproductive system has 27 parts, and the human female counter-part system has 23 parts, and the system does not work when any of these systems are missing. You have here an irreducibly complex system that TOE must account for, or TOE looses.
All of these parts have specific functions in order to accomplish the goal of reproduction. They must all be perfectly organized and situated with the other parts in order to work properly or the entire system fails (the reproductive system is irreducibly complex).
How many genes code for all these different parts? How many mutations (ARC genetic changes) would it have taken to build this marvelous machinery of the male sex organ?
What kind of selection pressure would have been exerted upon this poor creature to go from asexual to sexual?
How in the world did this particular organism maintain itself in the face of such pressure for thousands of years no, hundreds of thousands of years (maybe a million or so) in order for it to piece together this system of sex?
How in the world did the testes originate via mutations (Accidental Random Chance genetic changes)?
The testes have to be at a specific temperature range in order to be able to generate viable sperm, so how did the organism know that the testes had to be in a scrotum (outside the body) in order for them to be able to produce viable sperm?
How did it even know what sperm was?
How did the ductus deferens know where to wind around to eventually meet with the ampulla or the seminal vesicle (and what they were)?
How could the ampulla or ductus deferens even be created, much less find their way to each other, through ARC mutations?
Why was the seminal vesicle or ampulla even necessary (evolutionarily speaking)?
How did all of these come together?
[FONT="]Where did the corpora cavernosa come from and how did it just happen that it was constructed so as to fill with blood to cause the penis to go erect?
For that matter, how could evolutionary processes know that the penis would need to go erect?
[/FONT] But lets look at another scenario, the human female counterpart, (suspensory ligaments, mesovarium, ovaries, uterine tube, ovarian ligament, body of uterus, fundus of uterus, fimbriae, follicle, vagina, cervix, fornix, perimetrium, myometrium, endometrium) not to mention the eggs.
In the same tune, how did all of these parts just know how to fit all together in the construction that would enable them all to work together for a common but specific goal of reproduction?
And, as with the male counterpart, how could ARC changes possibly make anything as perfectly arranged as the male or female reproductive system?
What is even more impossible and improbable (and goes against commonsense logic), is the assumption that both male and female sexual organs could have come about simultaneously in the same genetic population.
[FONT="]Greater still is the unjustified assumption that these two widely different organs fit one another in hand in glove fashion, due to random chance accidents. [/FONT]
That is actually a lot of questions, but I look forward to your response.
Who cares what the selection pressures were? Evolution has an answer - it says that these changes happened slowly over time because undergoing the changes increased survivability and reproduction. How logical or probable it seems to you doesn't matter. If we looked and there were pressures that suggest that sex originated all at once out of thin air then evolution has reason to sweat. If it turns out that sex is not heritable then evolution has a reason to sweat. But if sex turns out to emerge and produce survivable offspring that can inherit sex then it is fully consistent with evolution.
Evolution is not the same as history. It is not an answer to the question of what selection pressures existed at what time. It is the process by which organisms pass heritable traits between generations. It is not an answer to why things are the way they are, only the process they got to be that way. It is a model which fits the facts - it is fully possible that sex linked chromosomes emerged autonomously very early on; new chromosomes are created all the time (see human trisomy 21 for a recent example). Even plants have sexes, and we haven't had common ancestors with plants in some time. Genetics explains how these changes come about, evolution explains what happens then.
Evolution and genetics together explain the mechanism by which things change over time. We can see it happening. From the fact that things can become different than they are, we deduce that it is allowed that things used to be different than they are. From that, we are permitted to induce that the things that exist now had ancestors in that past that were not the same as them. Thus when we find old dead things similar to the things that now exist we can induce that those things are the ancestors of the things that now exist.
Further, ToE makes predictions. It predicts that if we change the environment, organisms better suited to the new environment should begin to overtake organisms unable to adapt to the new environment - see the classic Pepper Moth or viruses that are immune to antibiotics. Why would God change the viruses he already made - shouldn't he have made them the way he wanted them in the first place?
The fact that you find the model improbable doesn't matter, nor does the fact that it doesn't accord with your common sense - ask Copernicus about the virtue of common sense observations. The model fits with the observations and has predictive power. Improbability does not equal impossibility, especially in biology (because there are so many trials for random events to take place)
No, they do split well. In fact, they replicate by 2 different mechanisms:I don't read biological articles very well. So bear with me.
In the article you linked, it seems (?) the artificial cells did not split well.
There is no "DNA characters" of the protocells. Initially the protocell is composed entirely of proteins. However, one thing the proteins in the cell will do is make DNA/RNA. But basically it's life without DNA.What is the DNA characters of the cell/protein?
Neither. BTW, both of those cells are eukaryotes. The cell is more similar to a bacterium or an archaium. Single cell without organelles. However, it is not exactly like either of those. People have proposed to put the cells into their own domain of life (domain is the taxonimic group higher than phylum).What kind of cell it equivalent to? a worm cell or a dog cell?
There are two separate papers there. In the first the selection pressure was temperature, not diet. In that one there was selection for mates, but the F1 and F2 hybrids were sterile. This is the equivalent of horses and donkeys (2 separate species) mating and producting mules, which are sterile.While the fruit flies preferred to mate with those of the same diet they could still mate (and did just less often than normal) from the other group which means reproductive isolation didn't occur. They were still the same species just on a different diet. I guess this is the best scientist can come up with.
"having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one"You may interpret it to mean this, but Darwin does not mention a cell... much less the first cell...anywhere.
Where did you get the idea that Mendelian genetics killed evolution? Instead, it strongly supported evolution.Genetics officially killed TOE when it could not be reconciled with the facts of genetics, and so the Synthesis was called.
You have gotten hold of some really, really outrageous false witness. Have you ever read a textbook on evolutionary biology? I strongly suggest Douglas Futuyma's Evolution.On that day, on the east coast somewhere (I can't remember where) when these guys got together, spear-headed by Mayr I believe, these prominent biologists came up with what you now call the modern synthesis and put together their formula for success. TOE died,
Considering that you can make living cells from non-living chemicals in your kitchen, I would say that 1) someone lied to you about the "facts", 2) you are unaware of what the facts are, or 3) you are engaging in your own false witnes.Even if we grant that God just made one, original, first cell...the facts of nature dictate militantly against life ever getting off the ground.
Considering your already poor track record of "facts" about the Modern Synthesis and the abiogenesis research, I bet your "facts" don't stand up.I have christian friends that believed in evolution too, until I showed them the facts of nature aside from the illegitimate and unwarranted assumptions that evolutionists teach as fact when they are not facts, they are only assumptions.
Do you know what PubMed is? It is an electronic search engine for the Library of Medicine. Do a google search on "Pubmed" and then go to the site. Enter "evolution" as your search term. Then start reading the abstracts of scientific article of facts all supporting evolution. It will take you awhile since there are nearly half of million of them!The more mysteries of biology that are discovered, the more TOE recedes into the darkness of ignorant blind faith, not a fact-based faith.
What I said was that when abiogenesis is introduced as part of evolution, THEN it is about the theism vs atheism fight. Because, as you have tacitly admitted, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.It is not about atheism vs theism, it is about the FACTS taught as facts,
Be my guest. Start a new thread entitled "facts that disprove evolution". If you haven't looked up my profile, perhaps I should tell you that I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. So what you call "factual evidence" may not be as "factual" as you think.It is not, and with enough factual evidence shown to you, I am confident that you will renounce it also.
As I said, I needed to get the articles from a library. So please prove to me that you have read the articles.First, if I didn't engage my brain and ask some very basic questions, I would also believe these articles...but I do.
Actually, that is not the case. The protocells form just the same and behave the same when you use a racemic mixture of amino acids and also amino acids present abiotically but not presently used in directed protein synthesis in modern organisms:Second, these experiments are conducted in environments and with optically purified "nutrients" that are not possible in nature. Therefore, this discussion (the Harbinger) fails.
Actually, no he hasn't been discredited. Instead, the research effort shifted to how directed protein synthesis arose. What they want is a modern cell, not a first cell.Third, Fox has been discredited now for years, I am very surprised that you even bring him up...unless you are not up-to-speed on the latest science on the subject.
That was solved a long time ago. There are LOTS of ways to get amino acids abiotically. The original Miller-Urey experiment did so. More recently it has been shown that amino acids will form via lightning in a variety of atmospheres:Forth, another problem, unless it has been solved recently without my hearing about it, is the fact that amino acids originate from some form of life that already existed. Therefore, you cannot have amino acids in a world of non-living creatures...
That is given above in this post.Where did the first amino acids come from (all of them that are required for a living cell)?
I'm not sure what you mean by that.When you do more research on the matter, you will find out that none of these "proteins" are recognized AS proteins we know today.
Actually, you don't know that since, as far as I know, none of the protocell experiments ever did an amino acid sequence! So, you just told a big whopper!We have cataloged over 10,000 full proteins at PIR which can be easily accessed in the protein research database...and not one of them appear in any "protocell" experiment.
LOL! Sure it is. Polypeptides are proteins. Proteins are polypeptides. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. Polypeptides are polymers of amino acids. When biochemists use the terms, "polypeptide" usually refers to a protein that is less than 10,000 MW. But not always.A random polypeptide is NOT a protein.
You really need to read a basic biochemistry text. I think Lehninger's Biochemistry is still on the market. Now, it turns out that abiotic peptides are not random. That was in the Harbinger article. Did you miss that?The difference between the two is specificity...and a random polypeptide has none.
Even in modern cells, 60-70% of the cell membrane are proteins. Did you not know that? So yes, you can have a cell whose entire membrane is protein.Proteins, despite your article and your claim, do not form cells...not even protocells. You do understand that the cell membrane is constructed out of phospholipid molecules?
Actually, again you are incorrect about the source of phospholipids.Phospholipids are only created from processes within the cell...so without an already viable, living cell, you do not have the lipids which construct a cell.
Since none of the papers did amino acid sequences, of course they didn't mention specific proteins. Again you have told a whopper Don't you believe in the 9th Commandment?and none of these specific proteins are EVER mentioned in papers claiming protocell genesis (why...because they are never the right ones necessary for life).
How did you possibly get the idea that nature has a mind? In artificial selection humans select the environment: thicker wool, faster running (for greyhounds), resistance to plant pathogens (crops), etc. Those individuals lucky enough to be born with traits that fit what the humans chose as the environment are artificially selected by the humans and those are the individuals that reproduce.LOL! Sorry. I shouldn't have laughed, but, you see, natural selection and artificial selection are the same thing! Again, have you read Origin of Species? "natural" selection, Darwin makes clear, is the same thing that happens with "artificial" selection, except that in artificial selection it is humans doing the selecting while in "natural" selection it is nature.
Same process, but different selectors. So if you say natural selection can do everything artificial selection can, then you are admitting evolution. Humans have used artificial selection to get new species and even a new genus! So you have just "proved" evolution. Thank you.
Interesting, I thought evolutionists gave this up years ago! So, you are basically stating that nature has a mind...you are deifying nature into a consciousness that shapes organisms with certain goals in mind. Are you sure you hold to christian doctrine?
In nature, there is no intelligence that sets the environment, is there? Unless you think God constantly interferes with the environment. So, the climate grows warmer. Just as many deer are born with longer fur as shorter fur. However, because longer fur is disadvantageous in a warmer climate (more heat stroke for one thing) and shorter fur is more advantageous (better cooling), the individual deer with shorter fur are going to survive better and leave more offspring to the next generation. The "selecting" is done by the non-intelligent environment.
That's not deifying nature.
Darwinian selection is a non-intelligent process the produces design. It is an algorithm to produce design.
Tritisocale started out as a hybrid between wheat and rye. BUT, it can no longer interbreed with either wheat or rye. In fact, the different species of Tritisocale can't interbreed with each other.Actually, it is NOT a whole new genus, it is an adaptation combining other adaptations from the same original plant. You can cross a bison with a cow because they are the same basic animal, just like you can cross a reindeer with a moose and get viable offspring...because they are the same basic animal, only variations of the original kind.
It's not enough that the offspring be viable to be the same species: the offspring must be fertile with both the originating populations and with each other.
Now, I can't find a documented case of a caribou-moose hybrid. Cow and bison can interbreed to make a wisent. However, first generation wisent males are sterile. American bison bulls have been bred to domestic cattle to produce beefalo and cattalo. What this shows is that the American bison and domestic cattle have not yet fully speciated.
However, that is not the case with triticosecale. It can't back breed with the original wheat and rye.
Now, since you invoke "kinds", can you tell us exactly what a "kind" is?
I think you meant "hollow" instead of "hallow". There's nothing religious about protocells. Now, you denied protocells have the 4 characteristics of life: metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction. But that was all it was: plain denial without evidence. And this again is a hollow claim without evidence.Actually, they have not made a cell. What they have made is a hallow bubble...nothing even close to a cell.
My undergraduate degree is chemistry and my graduate degree is biochemistry. Both of those gave me good grounding in the "laws of chemistry and genetics". Which "laws of chemistry and genetics" do you think forbid abgiogenesis or evolution?Yes, and the laws of chemistry and genetics
Someone else quoted from this article:Are we still trying to make a cell? Where are we in this research? Should this research be called an evolution research or a creation research?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?