Critique of Chemical Evolution (page 2)

Vidqun

I should have added. Feel free not to watch it. I can see why you all did not excel in the debating team. Must say, all comments so far qualify as "word salad," however this time "a coherent jumble of words and verbal sounds." Not one has anything substantial to say, except for ad hominem attacks of the person and his religion. One way of hiding one's ignorance. Unfortunately there's nothing I can go on that's worth answering, except perhaps the application of "word salad."

By the way MeanMrMustard, what he's saying: In the primordial soup would have to be many atoms and molecules that would have to be combined to start off life. Although millions of combinations being possible, only one combination would sustain life, e.g., the naturally occurring D-ribose sugar in DNA, RNA and ATP (see Wikipedia). What's the chance of that? But I'm afraid, only an experienced chemist would be able to work this out. So ask for a (chemist) friend.

MeanMrMustard

ad hominem

Nope. Didn't attack the guy. I attacked his line of reasoning. All fair game.

By the way MeanMrMustard, what he's saying: In the primordial soup would have to be many atoms and molecules that would have to be combined to start off life. Although millions of combinations being possible, only one combination would sustain life, e.g., the naturally occurring D-ribose sugar in DNA, RNA and ATP (see Wikipedia). What's the chance of that? But I'm afraid, only an experienced chemist would be able to work this out. So ask for a (chemist) friend.

I know what he's saying. He frames it all at the start with the " attributes of life". Its then used to do the same trick you've tried above: namely, there was a "soup" and then POOF! - fully formed DNA, RNA, ATP in cells. No intermediates, no process. No other possibilites. And then you coyfully ask "What's the chance of that?" It really sound like deception mixed with the old "irreducibly complex" argument.

This reminds me of the an elder I once talked to about evolution, and the proof needed for him to accept it. His answer was as soon as 'we have an example of a monkey giving birth to a human', then he would be willing to belive it. Didn't matter that nobody was claiming that should ever happen, and it would pretty much disprove evolution of it did.

You are making the same logical mistakes...

cofty

Molecules don't care about life

Gibberish.

The key to abiogenesis is bioenergetics. If you want to actually know about the progress - and I mean real specific science that proposes the details from geochemistry to biochemistry - see Nick Lane's latest book Transformer.

Stephen Meyer is a joke. Check out the 'Pandas and People' farce.

Vidqun

No, his argument is even simpler than that. Chemists, biochemists and molecular scientists in the most advanced laboratory setups cannot even synthesize a living cell, even if you supply all the necessary ingredients. They cannot even synthesize RNA, an absolute necessary for a cell to function. They are not even close.

And what I found very interesting is his definition of life, something you all feel you must ridicule. He gave the text book definition of abiogenesis and a living entity. This is also what I learnt in my studies.

Abiogenesis: Origin of life from living matter. And a living entity must:

1) Be responsive to its environment.

2) Grow and change.

3) Be able to reproduce.

4) Have a metabolism and breathe.

5) Maintain homeostasis (steady internal physical and chemical condition)..

6) Be made up of cells.

7) Be passing traits to offspring.

Like your elder friend, if they accomplish the above, I will become a believer. But I will still believe in a Creator, because then man has become a "creator." Feel free to give your definition of a living entity, I'm all ears. I thought you all might want to criticize the above and give your own definition. As you'll notice, this is a tall order. One must be very brave to do research on the origin of life. But you must inform your elder friend, he must watch out what he wishes for. With CRISPR technology, this is quite possible. With the geneticists the sky is the limit.

Cofty, do give us more to wet our appetites. Ad hominem attacks don't do anything for me, I'm afraid. Be specific.

EasyPrompt

Evolutionary theorists went to the same school as the GB - they all have a "BS" degree.😝

Make believe. Evolution is make believe. It's sci-fi.

EasyPrompt

Yeah, Nick Lane, for $18.95 you can find out the secrets of the universe...🤣🤣🤣Not!

At least he figured out how to make a few bucks - his book is basically taking the pattern from Hindu religion (a lot of talk about cycles and patterns and interconnectedness) and switch the words around, replace the "spirit" vocabulary with "science" vocab and stick a lot of four syllable words in everywhere, lol!

Here's an excerpt from Transformer: "If the Krebs cycle is ordained by thermodynamics, then it should take place spontaneously in some suitably propitious environment, even in the absence of genes. That idea was once dismissed as 'if pigs could fly' chemistry, yet revolutionary new work shows that at least some of the cycle can indeed just happen, catalysed by rocks and metals, rather than by proteins encoded by genes."

What a bunch of bunk! Blah blah blah...he's making it all up just like the GB make up the 1914 thing.

It's the same thing the GB do. What a sham! These guys cut and paste some bunch of lies from the dudes that came before them, just like the current GB cut and pastes from Russell's lies or Rutherford's lies. Then they add a new layer and charge a new fee. It's a bunch of refuse.

Evolutionary "science" isn't science as all. It's a big fiction show. They are book salesmen, just like Russell was.

Jofi_Wofo

Sounds like a tiresomely long-winded way of saying "God of the gaps."

MeanMrMustard

No, his argument is even simpler than that.

OMG, really?

Chemists, biochemists and molecular scientists in the most advanced laboratory setups cannot even synthesize a living cell, even if you supply all the necessary ingredients. They cannot even synthesize RNA, an absolute necessary for a cell to function. They are not even close.

Wait. Wait. Are you meaning to tell me that if you put a slurry of amino acids, lipids, and proteins into a jar, it won't spontaneously create cellular life?! Are you sure? Did they shake it hard enough?

Abiogenesis: Origin of life from living matter. And a living entity must:
1) Be responsive to its environment.
2) Grow and change.
3) Be able to reproduce.
4) Have a metabolism and breathe.
5) Maintain homeostasis (steady internal physical and chemical condition)..
6) Be made up of cells.
7) Be passing traits to offspring.
Like your elder friend, if they accomplish the above, I will become a believer.

Pfft. Lol. And I'll believe when God creates a married bachelor.

EasyPrompt

The real "god of the gaps" is the evolution fairy.

(I don't believe in fairies. But here is how the story goes...)

The evolution fairy says that ~~magically~~ "scientifically" once upon a time, a long long time ago nobody did anything and then stuff happened all by itself.

(And if somebody doesn't believe it when you tell them about the evolution fairy, act all huffy and condescending and just add in some fancy-sounding science vocab words and the names of some guys you heard about on the internet and add a few more millennia to the story and talk as if you know what you're talking about even though it's just make believe. Kids who make up stories do that all the time.)

The more gaps in the evolutionary timeline, the more big words you have to shove in to "splane it". You can even use a chart and a pointer stick to make it look more "scientific".

Evolution fairies are the gods of gaps.

(Evolutionary theory is a make believe story. It's sci-fi.)

Jofi_Wofo

My mistake. I didn't realize you were a troll. I'll take that into consideration and be less respectful next time.

Critique of Chemical Evolution

Share this