Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?

Factfinder

More interesting connections...

Factfinder

I just can't understand how any delusions of the supernatural can be more fascinating then natural phenomenon...

Factfinder

 @just_sayin

When whales could walk...



Thais is what qualifies as evidence, not hearsay from myth books.

Bogan

 "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so. "      Nobel Laureate Professor James Watson, director of the Human Genome Project.      

Factfinder

Bogan said:

 "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so. "      Nobel Laureate Professor James Watson, director of the Human Genome Project.      

And yet the powers of reason are there. 

just_sayin

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

jack

Argument Topic: Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?

@Factfinder

Hello F:

In my world, I knew nothing other than evolution.  There was never even a question.  There still isn't..

excon

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain abiogenesis. It's concern is origin of species, not life. And just because we (you as well) do not know exactly how life arose doesn't mean an imaginary friend did it. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

Evolutionary "theory" is not "science" but a religion for atheists and like minded fools.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain abiogenesis. It's concern is origin of species, not life. And just because we (you as well) do not know exactly how life arose doesn't mean an imaginary friend did it. 

Evolution has to explain how life arises from non-live.  How life arises from the simplest forms to higher forms is what evolution means.  You don't want to take an honest look at the science because it conflicts with your faith claims about evolution.  Chemical evolution is an essential part of evolution - its in the genes where it is alleged that new genetic information arises.  However, if you are aware of the science of this, then you are aware of the problems for introducing new genetic information. 

Its not that there are not lots of theories about how new information arises in genes, its that actual observation is rare and there are serious issues with the various methods.  For example with gene duplication, the gene is believed to be copied into a new location within the genome.  Gene conservation, which should maintain both copies of the duplicated gene, is thought to be rare due to the lack of evidence for it and the rapid gene loss that typically follows polyploidization events.  Also, neofunctionalization, the process by which a duplicated gene might acquire new functions, is controversial and not widely seen in nature.  

There are problems with de novo origination,  exon/domain shuffling, and even epigenetic changes are just transient and don't really change the DNA strand.  

Once again I observe that it is those who have put their faith in evolution who seem to be running from the scientific issues and problems with the theory.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Evolution has to explain how life arises from non-live.

No it doesn't.

How life arises from the simplest forms to higher forms is what evolution means.  You don't want to take an honest look at the science because it conflicts with your faith claims about evolution.

Empirical evidence strongly supports the fact divergence through decent took place. You don't want to take an honest look at the science because it conflicts with your religious blind faith claims of an imaginary creature.

Chemical evolution is an essential part of evolution - its in the genes where it is alleged that new genetic information arises.  However, if you are aware of the science of this, then you are aware of the problems for introducing new genetic information. 

We don't understand everything that much is true. Here's what we know: We exist so the circumstances needed for genetic information to emerge did occur. It is like a puzzle that is partially together but still missing most of the pieces. And none suggest an undetectable imaginary agent called Santa or any other name.

Its not that there are not lots of theories about how new information arises in genes, its that actual observation is rare and there are serious issues with the various methods.  For example with gene duplication, the gene is believed to be copied into a new location within the genome.  Gene conservation, which should maintain both copies of the duplicated gene, is thought to be rare due to the lack of evidence for it and the rapid gene loss that typically follows polyploidization events.  Also, neofunctionalization, the process by which a duplicated gene might acquire new functions, is controversial and not widely seen in nature.   

Yup science is a continuous work in process. So far any new discoveries or information that is uncovered all points to natural phenomenon. No 'god' dna or anything even remotely imagined could be 'god' dna ever presents itself. No observations, no contact, nothing. And that's the 'nothing' you believe everything came from. 

There are problems with de novo origination,  exon/domain shuffling, and even epigenetic changes are just transient and don't really change the DNA strand.

Problems always arise in science because they look for answers, not a mind soothing assertion that god did it.

Once again I observe that it is those who have put their faith in evolution who seem to be running from the scientific issues and problems with the theory.  

If that self assuring statement makes you feel smug and works for you then good for you. However it doesn't have much value in the real world.  

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Evolutionary "theory" is not "science" but a religion for atheists and like minded fools.

A fool is one who serves the same Abrahamic god (Allah) as Islam does yet derides them and admits would abuse them as 'turds' just because they do the same things Christians are told to do as it is written in their bibles. 

MayCaesar

No, I think that the Evolutionary Theory is wrong on a number of accounts. One of them being the idea that animal brains continuously develop to better adapt to their environments. Based on comments of a couple of religious posters in this thread, this is demonstrably not the case.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

No, I think that the Evolutionary Theory is wrong on a number of accounts. One of them being the idea that animal brains continuously develop to better adapt to their environments. Based on comments of a couple of religious posters in this thread, this is demonstrably not the case.

In my post I identified several problems with abiogenesis : https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179759/#Comment_179759

I predicted this:

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Thank you for proving me right.  @MayCaesar, you have mentioned how smart you are about science.  It would be a great time for you to actually answer the questions I put forth.  They would give you a Nobel Prize if you did.

What some have refused to acknowledge is that the science of evolutionary theory indicates that abiogenesis is not statistically possible.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

There are numerous problems just getting to the first organism that science suggests could not happen on the primordial earth without some intelligence aiding it.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

LOL yes I do.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

@MayCaesar, you have mentioned how smart you are about science.

I only remember saying that I consider myself a lousy scientist. But I think I have finally figured you out: you always say the opposite of the truth. Take any one of your statements, replace it with negation of it - and then you will get a coherent line of reasoning.

I wish my own thinking was this simple... I am wrong only about 92% of the time, so the reversion method does not really work here.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

I see that I am the one talking the science, and others are taking personal shots and making faith claims.  The questions I mentioned have not been addressed.  These are serious scientific problems for the theory of evolution.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

I see that I am the one talking the science, and others are taking personal shots and making faith claims.  The questions I mentioned have not been addressed.  These are serious scientific problems for the theory of evolution.  

No one denies that, it just doesn't mean an imaginary being is the answer. And you are the one running from science. Do you deny divergence through decent is reality? Rejection of your faith isn't the same as 'taking personal shots' at your faith. Just a fact based in reality.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

I see that I am the one talking the science, and others are taking personal shots and making faith claims.  The questions I mentioned have not been addressed.  These are serious scientific problems for the theory of evolution.  

No one denies that, it just doesn't mean an imaginary being is the answer. And you are the one running from science. Do you deny divergence through decent is reality? Rejection of your faith isn't the same as 'taking personal shots' at your faith. Just a fact based in reality.

I've mentioned this several times to you, but I'll repeat it again - If God used evolution it would not harm my faith in the least.  God would still be the source of all creation. It is your faith, that needs life to arise from non-life.  Your faith collapses if an intelligence is needed for abiogenesis.

If the chemical evolution of biogenesis doesn't work, then evolution doesn't work.  You posted a video on whale evolution. The video claimed a common link because of a specific limb bone present in a species.  That could be true, however, there are several instances where evolutionists would claim that similar structures in different species evolved independently of each other, called convergent evolution (an example would be the eyes of mammals and the eyes of octopus, opposable thumbs on humans and chameleons) . So, the presence of the same anatomy part is not always a sign of a common evolutionary descendant or that one species evolved from another.  

If I asked you to put these objects into evolutionary order what order would you place them- needle, nail, screw, washer, nut, bolt, paper clip, and spring from a pen?  You could easily derive an evolutionary order.  You could argue that the paper clip's bend gave rise to the springs bends.  However, one important point remains - none of the objects evolved from the other - they all are the product of intelligence  All the charts claiming that one animal mutated into another would be proven false, if the chemical evolution is not possible, and that is what the science is hinting that it is statistically impossible.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

I suppose God could have used evolution to create all the creatures on the planet. However, I'm just not sure I have that much faith.  In the debate on abiogenesis I mentioned some questions that the faithful believers in evolution don't have workable answers to:

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Scientists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

Sometimes there are appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found what he did was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created in a natural environment.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  20 different amino acids minimum are needed for even simple DNA or RNA.

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No. The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet to the faithful atheist 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

I'm sure my atheist friends will spend their energies in personal attacks against anyone who dares asks them to take a look at the science.  What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Heard that sermon before. You know this is a debate site, right? I provided evidence behind the theory of divergence through decent. A component of evolutionary theory. Your response is to inject a supernatural agency for wit there is not one scintilla of evidence for support and ramble on about the things not known? Did you read my intro where I provided an explanation on how differently the word 'theory' is used between laymen and scholars? And how cross sections of the different disciplines of science overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution?

The questions about the first steps of chemical evolution that I raised are not 'preaching', but legitimate problems with abiogenesis.  If those first steps are impossible on the primordial earth, then the theory of evolution can't be correct as the true origin of life.  I get how your faith in evolution isn't interested in the science which strongly suggests that abiogenesis isn't possible.  It results in dissonance that causes you to question your faith in evolution.  But the truth is the truth, and we should not be afraid of it, no matter what we put our faith in.

I see that I am the one talking the science, and others are taking personal shots and making faith claims.  The questions I mentioned have not been addressed.  These are serious scientific problems for the theory of evolution.  

No one denies that, it just doesn't mean an imaginary being is the answer. And you are the one running from science. Do you deny divergence through decent is reality? Rejection of your faith isn't the same as 'taking personal shots' at your faith. Just a fact based in reality.

I've mentioned this several times to you, but I'll repeat it again - If God used evolution it would not harm my faith in the least.  God would still be the source of all creation. It is your faith, that needs life to arise from non-life.  Your faith collapses if an intelligence is needed for abiogenesis.

If the chemical evolution of biogenesis doesn't work, then evolution doesn't work.  You posted a video on whale evolution. The video claimed a common link because of a specific limb bone present in a species.  That could be true, however, there are several instances where evolutionists would claim that similar structures in different species evolved independently of each other, called convergent evolution (an example would be the eyes of mammals and the eyes of octopus, opposable thumbs on humans and chameleons) . So, the presence of the same anatomy part is not always a sign of a common evolutionary descendant or that one species evolved from another.  

If I asked you to put these objects into evolutionary order what order would you place them- needle, nail, screw, washer, nut, bolt, paper clip, and spring from a pen?  You could easily derive an evolutionary order.  You could argue that the paper clip's bend gave rise to the springs bends.  However, one important point remains - none of the objects evolved from the other - they all are the product of intelligence  All the charts claiming that one animal mutated into another would be proven false, if the chemical evolution is not possible, and that is what the science is hinting that it is statistically impossible.  

That's great it wouldn't harm your faith. But if that's true why is it so important to you to say 'god did it' when you can't explain in detail how it did it?

Evolution does 'work' even though we don't have all the answers. 'God did it' doesn't provide any answers at all. It's just blind faith. You don't know how a volcano erupts so you say 'god did it'.

I've asked you to explain how god did it in detail  and provide evidence and you just ignore me and say "we don't know so god did it'. But you never explain how Aphrodite does anything nor do you ever supply solid evidence like I did showing  what proves the fact of evolution.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Perhaps you should detail the methods, tools, order and materials your god used?

Or answer point by point without dogma...https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179785/#Comment_179785

Joeseph

Evolution is fact , there are mountains of peer reviewed  evidence to support it, there is not even one peer reviewed paper that challenges it, game over.

Those who claim Evolution is bunk are similar to flat earthers or fhe bunch of assorted conspiracy theorists who make up the small lunatic fringe in society.

The saddest of the lot are various religious nuts who think if somehow Evolution was disapproved it proves a god when this again is not the case.

The vast majority of religious people accept the theory of Evolution as fact, all that's left are the true beyond help religious loons who for anything they don't understand claim Goddidit, how convenient and childishly immature of them.


Rational Wiki

Goddidit is one of the masterstrokes and trump-cards that creationists and other biblical literalists have at their disposal when debating points with naturalists and rationalists.[4][note 1] It proposes that anything is and was possible because of the omnipotence of God — specifically the ability to bend the laws of time, logic, and physics. This means that arguments that focus on the feasibility of a global flood, for instance — complicated analyses of how much water would be required, if food could be provided for Noah's animals and the construction of his ark — can be swept away and ignored.

Factfinder

@Joeseph

And even the religious that accept evolution, they can't explain the necessity for a supernatural agents involvement. They equally just assert it because of un answered questions. Doesn't make sense but some members we know call that approach 'examining science'. 

Joeseph

@Factfinder

It's astonishing to me the leaps they will make to defend their ridiculous world views, indoctrination is truly effective in achieving its aims.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; The fool is the atheist who lies to himself and others and exists in dishonesty in order to satiate their base desires....you are that person.

just_sayin

@FactFinder

Evolution does 'work' even though we don't have all the answers.

That's a statement of faith.  If evolution 'worked' you could explain my questions.  The fact is the evidence from science suggests that you can not get the level of complexity needed in DNA even for the simplest one celled organism without intelligence guiding it.  

When you see something complex, like DNA code, it is logical to assume that some intelligence initiated it, especially when it hasn't been reproduced without intelligence guiding it.  I just don't have the faith to believe that order came from chaos, and life came from non-life.

MayCaesar

I totally understand the argument that, since a given theory in its current state does not have all the answers to all the questions we can conceivably ask, it must be questioned. This is why I unquestionably accept The Only True Religion since it has an answer to every question I can ask: "God did it"!

jack

just_sayin said:

 What would be great though is if the faith-filled atheist explained how their belief in evolution explains the many basic and devastating chemical problems of life coming from non-life.  

Hello just:

Easy peasy..  We don't yet know how life began.  Does that mean evolution isn't true??  Nahhh..  Like most science, it's a work in progress..  Will we find out how life started??  Oh, you betcha, we will.  Fact is, science will eventually discover EVERYTHING.. 

excon

Factfinder

@just_sayin

That's a statement of faith.  If evolution 'worked' you could explain my questions. 

Well that's a false statement for you have nothing to do with whether biology works the way it does or not. Should think less of your self and more about the facts. I brought evidence that suggest the scientific body of evidence now available demonstrates evolution has 'worked' and is 'working' and is a reality. Doesn't matter your level of ignorance. Or mine.

If god 'worked' you could explain my questions, but you can't. Difference is there is a plethora of empirical evidence supporting the theory of evolution as fact where as there is not one single piece of evidence of a god/goddess or how exactly they would have done anything.

When you see something complex, like DNA code, it is logical to assume that some intelligence initiated it,  

Now that's a statement of faith. Much like when something seen that was complex at one time the assumption was the sun revolved around the earth as god until science discovered the truth.

OakTownA

@just_sayin
"Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it?"
No one has directly observed the start of any novel life form, so I don't see the point of this question. 

"Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?"
 The "primordial soup" hypothesis is outdated, and no longer the predominant hypothesis for abiogenesis. If you are going to make claims, you may want to check if scientist are still making those claims.

"Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?"
Do you mean in a lab? No, but why would we need to, as they form naturally? There are over 500 amino acids, yet all life, that we know of, utilizes the same 20-22. Why is that? "The new study suggests that life’s dependence on these 20 amino acids is no accident. The researchers show that the kinds of amino acids used in proteins are more likely to link up together because they react together more efficiently and have few inefficient side reactions....
For the experiment, the researchers compared “proteinaceous” amino acids—those used by organisms today—to amino acids that are not present in living things. The researchers knew water evaporation could have created the conditions necessary for amino acids to link together on early Earth, so they used a drying reaction—water evaporates and heat is applied—to mimic the natural conditions that cause amino acids to form peptides...The proteinaceous amino acids seemed to prefer reactivity through a part of their structure called the alpha-amine. They mostly formed linear, protein-like backbone “topologies” (geometric formations). This tendency could have given these amino acids a head start in folding and binding, leading eventually to proteins." Article here, if you don't want to read the paper linked above.

"Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?"
See study cited above.

"Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?"
I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about DNA? DNA consists of chemicals, no different than any other chemical reaction. DNA contains no more "information" than H2O.

"Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?"
No, otherwise it wouldn't be a hypothesis. There is, however, support for it, like this recent study, which found an enzyme that allows RNA to self replicate. I, personally, don't know enough about it to say one way or another. There are multiple hypotheses on how life started on Earth. This is one. 

"Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions."
See study cited above. RNA does not need to "perform all the necessary cellular functions..." because modern cells are much more complex than primitive cells. If you think that biologists are claiming that the first cells to form looked and functioned like modern cells, you are mistaken.

"Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)"
Where did he get these numbers? In order to calculate probability, one must have one or more objects/items that actually exists to compare. For example, if one wants to find the probability of pulling a purple marble out of a pouch, one must first know how many total marbles are in the pouch, and how many of them are purple. The quote above has used speculation to create a probability that enforces the authors perspective. What does the author mean by "chance?" How did he come up with that "probability?" In my example above, I can show my math on how I calculated my chances of pulling a purple marble. Dembski has not shown his work similarly.

"As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it 'The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.'"
Okay. So what? Like I said, the RNA HYPOTHESIS is just that; a hypothesis. Not everyone is going to agree. He is NOT a creationist, but supports a different mechanism for abiogenesis. 

"Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?"
Yes. DNA consists of amino acids, which are chemicals. Complex, yes, but chemicals none the less.

Evolution occurs regardless of how life started on this planet, which is why discussing abiogenesis is pointless in a debate about evolution.  Do you believe that the Bible is literal and 100% true? If so, do you believe Noah's Flood was an actual global flood that wiped out all life on Earth except that which was on the Arc? Do you think natural and artificial selection occur?

OakTownA

@RickeyHoltsclaw
"The fool is the atheist who lies to himself and others and exists in dishonesty in order to satiate their base desires....you are that person."
Glad you know my life better than I do! What, pray tell, is my "base desire(s)?" I'm an atheist because I have found no evidence to suggest a god or gods exist. Why don't you leave out oils and perfume for Bastet? Don't you want her to bless your home and children?

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; The fool is the atheist who lies to himself and others and exists in dishonesty in order to satiate their base desires....you are that person.

What base desires are you referring to? As a rule atheism has nothing to do with desires as it simply rejects god concepts. Are you suggesting you would have done more to people you called 'turds' then you did because you believed god was watching and not because you have any morals yourself? 

just_sayin

OakTownA said:

@just_sayin
"Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it?"
No one has directly observed the start of any novel life form, so I don't see the point of this question. 

"Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?"
 The "primordial soup" hypothesis is outdated, and no longer the predominant hypothesis for abiogenesis. If you are going to make claims, you may want to check if scientist are still making those claims.

"Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?"
Do you mean in a lab? No, but why would we need to, as they form naturally? There are over 500 amino acids, yet all life, that we know of, utilizes the same 20-22. Why is that? "The new study suggests that life’s dependence on these 20 amino acids is no accident. The researchers show that the kinds of amino acids used in proteins are more likely to link up together because they react together more efficiently and have few inefficient side reactions....
For the experiment, the researchers compared “proteinaceous” amino acids—those used by organisms today—to amino acids that are not present in living things. The researchers knew water evaporation could have created the conditions necessary for amino acids to link together on early Earth, so they used a drying reaction—water evaporates and heat is applied—to mimic the natural conditions that cause amino acids to form peptides...The proteinaceous amino acids seemed to prefer reactivity through a part of their structure called the alpha-amine. They mostly formed linear, protein-like backbone “topologies” (geometric formations). This tendency could have given these amino acids a head start in folding and binding, leading eventually to proteins." Article here, if you don't want to read the paper linked above.

"Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?"
See study cited above.

"Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?"
I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about DNA? DNA consists of chemicals, no different than any other chemical reaction. DNA contains no more "information" than H2O.

"Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?"
No, otherwise it wouldn't be a hypothesis. There is, however, support for it, like this recent study, which found an enzyme that allows RNA to self replicate. I, personally, don't know enough about it to say one way or another. There are multiple hypotheses on how life started on Earth. This is one. 

"Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions."
See study cited above. RNA does not need to "perform all the necessary cellular functions..." because modern cells are much more complex than primitive cells. If you think that biologists are claiming that the first cells to form looked and functioned like modern cells, you are mistaken.

"Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10^150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)"
Where did he get these numbers? In order to calculate probability, one must have one or more objects/items that actually exists to compare. For example, if one wants to find the probability of pulling a purple marble out of a pouch, one must first know how many total marbles are in the pouch, and how many of them are purple. The quote above has used speculation to create a probability that enforces the authors perspective. What does the author mean by "chance?" How did he come up with that "probability?" In my example above, I can show my math on how I calculated my chances of pulling a purple marble. Dembski has not shown his work similarly.

"As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it 'The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.'"
Okay. So what? Like I said, the RNA HYPOTHESIS is just that; a hypothesis. Not everyone is going to agree. He is NOT a creationist, but supports a different mechanism for abiogenesis. 

"Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?"
Yes. DNA consists of amino acids, which are chemicals. Complex, yes, but chemicals none the less.

Evolution occurs regardless of how life started on this planet, which is why discussing abiogenesis is pointless in a debate about evolution.  Do you believe that the Bible is literal and 100% true? If so, do you believe Noah's Flood was an actual global flood that wiped out all life on Earth except that which was on the Arc? Do you think natural and artificial selection occur?

First, I wanted to say how much I appreciated your post.  Thanks for the link to the article.  It was by far my favorite post of the day.

The Nature article to the 2010 study, is not the study itself. But no problem, the study can be found in the  National Academy of Sciences.  Unfortunately, it doesn't solve any of the problems that I mentioned.  First, it did not create the 20 - 22 amino acids from scratch in the same environment.  While the amino acids , except one of them, play nicely with each other, the chemical reactions needed to create the amino acids are deleterious to the creation of other amino acids.  It did not solve that problem.  It did not create the enzymes that it theorized interacted with them.   Further, it didn't create proteins at all but what it called 'protein like' or pre-proteins.  Its 'pre-proteins' by their own admission can not form RNA or be used in DNA, so they are essentially useless.   It would be like being tasked to build a bridge across the bay and building a sand castle instead.  It might be an awesome sandcastle, but it can not be a substitute for the bridge.   It doesn't solve the problem of water breaking down proteins either.  They applied lab conditions to remove the water (a high powered blow dryer) to avoid the process.  Not sure where this kind of environment would have existed in a prebiotic world where all the amino acids would have needed to be gathered together.

You asked about the calculation of the odds for RNA for a 250 nucleotide structure that is useable.  All DNA, RNA, and their building blocks are all right-handed, whereas amino acids and proteins are all left-handed.  Again, the proto-proteins from the study, didn't have the right 'charge' to work.  But even if they did, you can see that random reactions would not produce even a short 250 nucleotide RNA strand.

OakTownA

@just_sayin
"First, it did not create the 20 - 22 amino acids from scratch in the same environment."
Again, why would they need to, AS THE AMINO ACIDS OCCUR NATURALLY?

"While the amino acids , except one of them, play nicely with each other, the chemical reactions needed to create the amino acids are deleterious to the creation of other amino acids.  It did not solve that problem. "
So what? There are over 500 amino acids. ALL living organisms, again that we know of, use the same 20. The study I shared explored why this might be. You are moving the goalposts. 

"It did not create the enzymes that it theorized interacted with them."
Not theorized; observed. The experiment did not attempt to create any enzyme; it found one that, once again, OCCURS NATURALLY.

"Further, it didn't create proteins at all but what it called 'protein like' or pre-proteins.  Its 'pre-proteins' by their own admission can not form RNA or be used in DNA, so they are essentially useless."
Yes, pre-protiens. Like what would have existed before life formed. The study demonstrated a possible backbone for the amino acids we see today. I think you are conflating your world view which requires that everything is created in an instant exactly as it is now to what science shows. Before there were amino acids, there were compounds like the one in this study that, over time and multiple further chemical interactions, became the amino acids we see today. If you are looking for an experiment that demonstrates modern amino acids poofing into existence, you will never find one,  because THAT"S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

"It would be like being tasked to build a bridge across the bay and building a sand castle instead."
No, more like providing the trellises and supports for the main structure of the bridge.

 "It doesn't solve the problem of water breaking down proteins either."
Where did you get the idea that proteins are "broken down" by water? I can find zero sources. In fact, I found multiple articles citing water as essential for the folding and formation of proteins. Like this one, which is an extensive review of the literature on how water affects proteins, or this one, which states: "The water of hydration is essential to the structure of protein crystals; when they are completely dehydrated, the crystalline structure disintegrates. In some proteins this process is accompanied by denaturation and loss of the biological function." Then there's this study from 2022, which found that: "The authors found that amino peptides can spontaneously generate in droplets of water during the quick reactions that happen when water meets the atmosphere, such as when a waterfall crashes down to a rock and the spray is lifted into the air." Again, if you are looking for the One Study that Proves It All, you will never find it, as that's not how science works.

"Not sure where this kind of environment would have existed in a prebiotic world where all the amino acids would have needed to be gathered together."
You're "not sure" whether large bodies of water, like lakes, rivers, oceans, ponds, that have natural dry and wet periods were around back then? Really?

"You asked about the calculation of the odds for RNA for a 250 nucleotide structure that is useable.  All DNA, RNA, and their building blocks are all right-handed, whereas amino acids and proteins are all left-handed.  Again, the proto-proteins from the study, didn't have the right 'charge' to work.  But even if they did, you can see that random reactions would not produce even a short 250 nucleotide RNA strand."
This does not answer my question. Present the math. WHERE did his numbers come from? Chemical reactions are not "random;" they follow the laws of physics, and, well, chemistry. Is it random that when you combine 2 hydrogen molecules with an oxygen molecule you get water?

I noticed you ignored or failed to reply to my questions, so I will post them again:

Do you believe that the Bible is literal and 100% true? If so, do you believe Noah's Flood was an actual global flood that wiped out all life on Earth except that which was on the Arc? Do you think natural and artificial selection occur?

ZeusAres42

As for the question, I am not up to date with the latest science on evolution. However, I am aware that there is no denying that it is a scientific theory based on a plethora of empirical evidence and observation. I also find the concept of bringing God into this as such people have done irrelevant. Supernatural theology is outside the scope of scientific inquiry, which is based on testable and verifiable hypotheses. 

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

As for the question, I am not up to date with the latest science on evolution. However, I am aware that there is no denying that it is a scientific theory based on a plethora of empirical evidence and observation. I also find the concept of bringing God into this as such people have done irrelevant. Supernatural theology is outside the scope of scientific inquiry, which is based on testable and verifiable hypotheses. 

I think the reverse is interesting though: understanding how the process of evolution led to religious thinking being so deeply ingrained in humanity. There is evidence of religions or proto-religions existing in virtually all human societies, collectives and tribes. There is also evidence of certain animals with highly developed cognition, such as apes, exhibiting behaviors resembling human religious rituals.

It could be that religion is not as much an intellectual way of interpreting knowledge of one's environment, as a lower-level, innate mechanism of compartmentalizing said knowledge. We look at something grand that we do not understand and are driven to "animalize", "animatize" it. It just occurred to me that it could even be an essential way for an animal to deal with "existential loneliness", when an animal feels disconnected from the world around it and acquires the sense of belonging by seeing itself as a part of the larger "collective". Apes seem to perform religious-like ritual during rain, perhaps, because they want to feel like a part of the wider tribe than just their immediate tribe, one including something beyond their awareness (and, of course, apes cannot verbalize it: it is more instinctual in them).

At the same time, the fact that nowadays many people are breaking away from religion suggests that it is not a necessary evolutionary attribute. Although we might be kidding ourselves: I have long suspected that we never fully give up that kind of thinking, replacing it with something more metaphorical/poetic. I am not religious, but I still can say things like, "My love for you transcends reality". This kind of pronunciations may be driven by the same instinct (which Jordan Peterson likes to call "awe") as religious thinking.