Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[Billy T]

Maybe you should do the experiment?

Why? it has been repeated at least 500 times in college labs - not hard or expensive to do.

Here is a relatively neutral site on abiogenesis: http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis It discusses a dozen or so differ possible forms of Abiogenesis. I am inclide to think this is how it started:

They spontaneously form so oceans has millions of them still today.This is figure's original caption:
Three main structures phospholipids form spontaneously in solution: the liposome (a closed bilayer), the micelle and the bilayer. More quoted from link:

"A protocell is a self-organized, endogenously ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.[147] A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and differed in reproductive contribution to the following generation driving the evolution of life. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal appears well within reach.[148][149][150]

"Self-assembled vesicles are essential components of primitive cells.... A boundary is needed to separate life processes from non-living matter.[151] Researchers Irene A. Chen and Jack W. Szostak (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009) amongst others, demonstrated that simple physicochemical properties of elementary protocells can give rise to essential cellular behaviors, including primitive forms of Darwinian competition and energy storage. Such cooperative interactions between the membrane and encapsulated contents could greatly simplify the transition from replicating molecules to true cells.[149] Furthermore, competition for membrane molecules would favor stabilized membranes, suggesting a selective advantage for the evolution of cross-linked fatty acids and even the phospholipids of today.[149] This micro-encapsulation allowed for metabolism within the membrane, exchange of small molecules and prevention of passage of large substances across it.[152] The main advantages of encapsulation include increased solubility of the cargo and storing energy in the form of a chemical gradient."

Billy T adds: quite often there would be "surface inclusions" some of which could do as the selective spots /ports in human membranes do - facilitie life processes.

 

[davewhite04]

Why? it has been repeated at least 500 times in college labs - not hard or expensive to do.

Here is a relatively neutral site on abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis It discusses a dozen or so differ possible forms of Abiogenesis.

My mistake.

I thought you were saying abiogenesis is a theory in its own right.

 

[matthew809]

It is, given the chemical evidence, exceedingly likely that abiogenesis proceeded from natural phenomena. I cite some of this above.

... the only other explanation is a deity.

A third option could be that the physical world doesn't exist at all. In other words, consciousness is all there is. Obviously I am not attempting to define or prove such a thing here.... and nor should any of you attempt to disprove such an idea because it can't be done. My point is that God is not the only other option. It is only your own biased perceptions that make you believe one option is more crazy than another. Think about this: to an exclusively conscious being, the idea of an actual "physical" existence would be completely nonsensical.

I guess my point is that abiogenesis should not get a free ride just because anything else would seem unnatural. I don't necessarily believe in creation/intelligent design per se; but within the confines of the known universe, with all it's physical laws, I know logically that the mechanisms of abiogenisis could not possibly come to fruition in reality...the law of probability stands in the way.

What seems more unnatural to you: picking the winning numbers every week of your life by dumb luck alone, or the possibility that you may have psychic abilities?

 

[davewhite04]

A third option could be that the physical world doesn't exist at all. In other words, consciousness is all there is. Obviously I am not attempting to define or prove such a thing here.... and nor should any of you attempt to disprove such an idea because it can't be done. My point is that God is not the only other option. It is only your own biased perceptions that make you believe one option is more crazy than another. Think about this: to an exclusively conscious being, the idea of an actual "physical" existence would be completely nonsensical.

I guess my point is that abiogenesis should not get a free ride just because anything else would seem unnatural. I don't necessarily believe in creation/intelligent design per se; but within the confines of the known universe, with all it's physical laws, I know logically that the mechanisms of abiogenisis could not possibly come to fruition in reality...the law of probability stands in the way.

What seems more unnatural to you: picking the winning numbers every week of your life by dumb luck alone, or the possibility that you may have psychic abilities?

I'm unconscious to this conscience you're talking about?

 

[GeoffP]

You're getting a bit too keen to suggest that abiogenesis did create life.

Forgive me for asking here, but what the hell are you talking about?

No scientist would put their neck on the line by making the statement you've just made.

A lot of very annoyed questions here: oh? And just who the hell is going to do the cutting of these exposed necks, lay person?

More specifically: We would absolutely make such a claim. We do all the time. That's what we think happened. That's what every single person I know in this field thinks happened, even the guy who's a Baptist or some minor but intense denomination Christian, or at least he's told me no different, so don't tell me my bloody business, boy. What in the hell do you think we consider happened? Jesus Christ.

 

[GeoffP]

A third option could be that the physical world doesn't exist at all. In other words, consciousness is all there is.

Well, as we can't test for The Matrix, we're going to go with what the physical and mathematical evidence offers.

I hope that's all right with Dave there, above.

 

[Bells]

You are a flamer, and a hypocrite. This site has some awesome members shame the people who run it are offensive and argumentative, and in your case, well, the less I read from you the better.

How are you going supporting your argument?

Not very well by the looks of it. Understood language yet?

Tell me, do you believe that water is alive and somehow magical as well?

You're getting a bit too keen to suggest that abiogenesis did create life.

Well... ya..

And it was more than 6,000 years ago.

I know, this may shock you somewhat..

No scientist would put their neck on the line by making the statement you've just made.

Umm.. Scientists make this statement all the time. So what are you talking about?

 

[matthew809]

Well, as we can't test for The Matrix, we're going to go with what the physical and mathematical evidence offers.

Are you going with what they offer... or are you going with what the scientific authority offers? Based on my experience with evolutionists, it always comes down to "all scientists agree" or "the science is settled already".

And what about this scientific authority.... are they going with "what the physical and mathematical evidence offers"? I see plenty of interpretation via storytelling going on, but absolutely zero scientific proof that life on earth emerged and evolved following basic physical laws.

I understand that proving such a thing as evolution may be impossible, and that we may need to rely on some necessary common sense to make up for our lack of definite proof. All the evidence is said to "point" towards life evolving by itself from scratch... but you have to ask yourself, who's doing the pointing?

edit: and why, despite the overwhelming professional/financial/educational bias for the theory of evolution, are there so many seemingly intelligent people out there who insist that evolution could not possibly be true?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I see plenty of interpretation via storytelling going on, but absolutely zero scientific proof

Science doesn't deal in PROOF.
If you don't know this then you don't know enough science to comment rationally.

I understand that proving such a thing as evolution may be impossible, and that we may need to rely on some necessary common sense to make up for our lack of definite proof. All the evidence is said to "point" towards life evolving by itself from scratch... but you have to ask yourself, who's doing the pointing?

Don't be ridiculous.

edit: and why, despite the overwhelming professional/financial/educational bias for the theory of evolution, are there so many seemingly intelligent people out there who insist that evolution could not possibly be true?

Because they have a vested interest in ignoring the facts.

I know logically that the mechanisms of abiogenisis could not possibly come to fruition in reality...the law of probability stands in the way.

Then your grasp of logic and probability are both sadly deficient.

 

[GeoffP]

Are you going with what they offer... or are you going with what the scientific authority offers?

Who is the they in they?

Based on my experience with evolutionists, it always comes down to "all scientists agree" or "the science is settled already".

You may add this conversation to that list. The science is settled already, unless creationism has a million-article pack of manuscript submissions coming out. Based on my experience with creationists, it always comes down to "I can't believe in things I can't see" (a disbelief that never extends to atoms, numbers, God or love) or "it's just a theory of equal value with my unsubstantiated views".

And what about this scientific authority.... are they going with "what the physical and mathematical evidence offers"?

Yes. We infer it across several levels. Different sources and approaches converge and support each other: DNA, morphology, ecological utilization, etc. But, you have access to the same information: so what's the alternative? Is there some other explanation for the things we've found? Is there some other logical reason that mammals share more DNA sequence than mammals and fish, or mammals and bananas?

I see plenty of interpretation via storytelling going on, but absolutely zero scientific proof that life on earth emerged and evolved following basic physical laws.

Well, in all honesty, you need to look at little harder then. Most of the necessary simple amino acids were produced after a pile of basic materials was placed in a heated jar for two weeks. Other work shows the production of RNA molecules from similar, simple materials. Do you see the significance of those two findings alone?

I understand that proving such a thing as evolution may be impossible, and that we may need to rely on some necessary common sense to make up for our lack of definite proof. All the evidence is said to "point" towards life evolving by itself from scratch... but you have to ask yourself, who's doing the pointing?

Me. I'm doing the pointing. A host of other professional, ethical and diligent people that I know are doing the pointing. What's the problem with them? Are they maybe Communists, or Democrats or something?

edit: and why, despite the overwhelming professional/financial/educational bias for the theory of evolution, are there so many seemingly intelligent people out there who insist that evolution could not possibly be true?

I suspect the key word is "seemingly". For example, why do three quarters of Americans think angels walk among us, and twenty percent of them think they have seen or been contacted by one? Why do half think your Civil War was about slavery? Why do 1 in 4 of them think the sun revolves around the Earth? There are an amazing host of issues about which these seemingly intelligent people possess an attitude founded in absolutely no physical or mathematical evidence whatsoever, or even in completely contradictory evidence that could be located by reaching out to pick a book off a shelf, or having a functional neocortex. One of the primary culprits is religion - well, let's be honest. The culprit is religion. People are more than willing to be as ignorant as they can provided their ignorance satisfies some baseless superstitious concerns that they were taught as children. I don't mind religion at all - in fact, all things being equal, I think it a positive thing. It just comes with the baggage of some astoundingly myopic views about the world.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/7_t...e_more_plausible_than_global_warming_partner/

 

[billvon]

Based on my experience with evolutionists, it always comes down to "all scientists agree" or "the science is settled already".

Much of it is. There is always more to learn.

I understand that proving such a thing as evolution may be impossible, and that we may need to rely on some necessary common sense to make up for our lack of definite proof. All the evidence is said to "point" towards life evolving by itself from scratch...

You're conflating two things here - abiogenesis and evolution. They are not the same (although there is some overlap in the two fields.)

but you have to ask yourself, who's doing the pointing?

Scientists, since they are the ones studying it.

edit: and why, despite the overwhelming professional/financial/educational bias for the theory of evolution, are there so many seemingly intelligent people out there who insist that evolution could not possibly be true?

Religion. They are told that their faith requires them to declare it untrue. (Or they see it as a "battle between moral believers and secular humanists" or some other foolishness.)

 

[matthew809]

Most of the necessary simple amino acids were produced after a pile of basic materials was placed in a heated jar for two weeks. Other work shows the production of RNA molecules from similar, simple materials. Do you see the significance of those two findings alone?

It makes sense, that if life was designed, that the designers would use basic building blocks which are easily available in the environment. In other words, the designer would make the environment likely to produce these building blocks using relatively simple mechanisms. It only makes sense. Would the designer of a mass producer of cars decide to use materials available only on the moon? Sure, with enough money it certainly could be done.... but well, you get the point.

So no, I don't think those findings are really so significant. In fact, some might say that a universe so conducive to forming the basic building blocks necessary for life, is evidence "pointing" towards a creator. I wouldn't say that. But it does make logical sense.

For example, why do three quarters of Americans think angels walk among us, and twenty percent of them think they have seen or been contacted by one?

Indoctrination is a powerful thing. It can make an otherwise intelligent person believe the most ridiculous things. Besides the church, the educational system is an even more powerful tool for indoctrination.

 

[matthew809]

You're conflating two things here - abiogenesis and evolution. They are not the same (although there is some overlap in the two fields.

I think the artificial distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a major obstacle in the way of a deeper understanding of how life came to be on this earth. You mention that there is an overlap between the two. I agree with that completely. In fact, it is this overlap where the major problems for evolutionists are hiding(or are hidden?). They claim that the building blocks of life have been re-created in the lab(abiogenesis)....then they skip over the grey overlap area(there's no official scientific name for this field of study, so it doesn't officially exist... or even matter)... and then they show how advanced life breeds variations of more life(evolution).

Ummm, you skipped a part.

 

[origin]

Panspermia is a possibility, but that isn't even coming up on my spell checker, same problem with abiogenesis.

That would not change anything now we just have abiogenesis on another planet.

 

[GeoffP]

It makes sense, that if life was designed, that the designers would use basic building blocks which are easily available in the environment. In other words, the designer would make the environment likely to produce these building blocks using relatively simple mechanisms. It only makes sense. Would the designer of a mass producer of cars decide to use materials available only on the moon? Sure, with enough money it certainly could be done.... but well, you get the point.

So no, I don't think those findings are really so significant. In fact, some might say that a universe so conducive to forming the basic building blocks necessary for life, is evidence "pointing" towards a creator. I wouldn't say that. But it does make logical sense.

Beyond our planet we really know quite little. The problem with this argument is that it invokes magic unnecessarily. "Well", you say, "God meant to do that." Maybe He did. But I can't test for that. His involvement, if any, in abiogenesis cannot be known, short of someone finding the imprint of a big finger in the ground a la The Creation of Adam. God represents a possible additional effect that, short of something 'miraculous', shall we say, cannot be tested for. What I can say is that I cannot detect for the signature of God in abiogenesis, and that divine intervention does not appear to be required to overcome the problem of abiogenesis. If you wish to believe that it came through God - much as anything might, much as God is often said to be in fate and decision-making in every incarnation short of the Spinozan version - then so be it. But understand that there is no evidence for God in this phenomenon, and that it does not require God so far as we know. Hence Gould and NOMA: science has nothing to say about religion, and vice-versa. And that, probably, is best. But if you're arguing based on naturalistic processes, you will find no evidence for your belief.

Indoctrination is a powerful thing. It can make an otherwise intelligent person believe the most ridiculous things. Besides the church, the educational system is an even more powerful tool for indoctrination.

That 'indoctrination' is basic on logic, and on naturalistic observation. Can the same be said of religion? Specks and planks, mon ami.

 

[origin]

I think the artificial distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a major obstacle in the way of a deeper understanding of how life came to be on this earth.

What are you talking about? As far as evolution goes it wouldn't matter if is was proved that Yaweh started life.

 

[Jason.Marshall]

A third option could be that the physical world doesn't exist at all. In other words, consciousness is all there is. Obviously I am not attempting to define or prove such a thing here.... and nor should any of you attempt to disprove such an idea because it can't be done. My point is that God is not the only other option. It is only your own biased perceptions that make you believe one option is more crazy than another. Think about this: to an exclusively conscious being, the idea of an actual "physical" existence would be completely nonsensical.

I guess my point is that abiogenesis should not get a free ride just because anything else would seem unnatural. I don't necessarily believe in creation/intelligent design per se; but within the confines of the known universe, with all it's physical laws, I know logically that the mechanisms of abiogenisis could not possibly come to fruition in reality...the law of probability stands in the way.

What seems more unnatural to you: picking the winning numbers every week of your life by dumb luck alone, or the possibility that you may have psychic abilities?

 

[Jason.Marshall]

You are talking about something like a "Boltzman Brain" Although you have the correct way of thinking about this in my opinion the thought is incomplete . you could compare the sum of all separate infinite conscious biengs to angels but in the end as vast as they may be they still were derived from the Prime "God" if you ask a question such as why am I here or why was I created or what is creation and put too much value on that perspective then you will not understand what I am saying. And "Probability" exists because the Prime reserves manual override but still keeping his promise of freewill.

 

[billvon]

I think the artificial distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a major obstacle in the way of a deeper understanding of how life came to be on this earth. You mention that there is an overlap between the two. I agree with that completely. In fact, it is this overlap where the major problems for evolutionists are hiding(or are hidden?). They claim that the building blocks of life have been re-created in the lab(abiogenesis)

Right. That's not evolution; that's abiogenesis.

...then they skip over the grey overlap area(there's no official scientific name for this field of study, so it doesn't officially exist... or even matter)

What the heck are you talking about? That's like saying there is no overlap between civil engineering and automotive engineering just because there's no name for that particular field. Scientists working on abiogenesis need to know many of the same basics of organic chemistry and biology that people working on evolutionary biology. That's why there is an overlap.

and then they show how advanced life breeds variations of more life(evolution). Ummm, you skipped a part.

No, they are separate fields of study that just overlap some basic concepts. Before life (basic self-replicating structures with 'memory' or heredity) came about, evolution didn't matter. Afterwards, it does. From the point of view of evolution, it doesn't matter if life came from the pyrite hypothesis, or the Zn-world hypothesis, or by Arrhenius spores, or by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All that matters is that self-replicating structures that exhibit heredity come into existence.

 

[Jason.Marshall]

As all of your collective temperature's rise we approach the birth of singularity.