https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... diversity/

One of the things that make this paper interesting are the authors. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist, and Nathan, who has "a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University". You are probably familiar with Lisle, and if you are not familiar with Nathan you can find some embarrassing things about him online.

Nathaniel Jeanson...you mean the guy who got his ass handed to him by REAL geneticists, clearly displaying his ignorance on genetics, geology, etc.?

Yeah, nice work AiG. Top quality scientists you got there.

The article cites Behe. Lol.

Dear me, what tedious nonsense. All based on Bishop Ussher's timescale and the appropriation of the word "kind" as having major biological significance. Phah!

I've explained all this to you atheists before but you never listen. See, Noah took every kind on the boat with him. That's actually a lot less animals then you might think. For example, he took a couple of Monkey kind. That's kind of like a monkey. Then God took the two monkeys and made some of their children bigger, to be gorillas, because gorillas are kind of like monkeys. He then stretched the arms of some and make Orangutans, which are again kind of like monkeys. Chimps, howlers, rhesus, all kind of like monkeys. Same happened with donkeys. Donkeys are kind of like horses and horses ore kind of like zebras, right? Hamsters are kind of like gerbils, which are kind of like chinchillas, which are kind of like prairie dogs, which are kind of like meerkats, all the way up to nutrias and capybaras, which are both kind of like all the others. Don't forget beavers, they're kind of like that too. Etc. Etc. Etc., and bingo, 1 trillion species!

Easy peasy for Our Great and Loving Lord! Checkmate, atheists.

Well, I suppose that kind of like an explanation.

So some weapons grade fuckwittery here -

On the question of mechanism, in 1859 Darwin’s answer may have seemed plausible, but modern molecular discoveries render it highly improbable, if not impossible, as the explanation for the origin of all life on earth (Behe 1996, 2007).

FFS, when did Darwin's answer to the variety of species we see, become an explanation for the origin of life on earth?

I refuse to read any further, because life is too short, even if I live forever.

That's always been their favorite "Checkmate Atheists!", and no matter how many times you explain that evolution is not abiogenesis they still don't get it. Best just to ignore them, you're not changing their 'minds'.

laklak wrote:no matter how many times you explain that evolution is not abiogenesis they still don't get it. Best just to ignore them, you're not changing their 'minds'.

The first replicating oligonucleotides (in short strands of RNA or whatever its precursor was) would have been subject to the same natural selection principles as apply to actual living organisms.

These would have started to act straight away - as soon as the first replicator started replicating.

So it's slightly lazy to dismiss the creotards out of hand for not using the right words - replicator variation and selection pressure resulting in modification over time can just as validly be termed 'evolution', even if what was evolving wasn't what we'd recognise now as living cells.

That's technically true, but far too nuanced for the average creationist. They're looking for that "Divine Spark" bit on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. They'd say "well yeah but what made the first replicator?"

laklak wrote:That's technically true, but far too nuanced for the average creationist. They're looking for that "Divine Spark" bit on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. They'd say "well yeah but what made the first replicator?"

They would indeed.

But we may be only a few years away from being able to make one of those using pre-biotically plausible precursors.

It won't shut up the Kents and Kens of this world, but it will be beautiful science, and the gaps that God has to fit into will be even smaller.

Actually, there's already a wealth of literature covering the underlying chemical syntheses. Montmorillonite catalytic synthesis of RNA already having been repeatedly demonstrated. And, we now have several routes to purine synthesis into the bargain, which was routinely peddled as a "gotcha" by creotard liars for doctrine until the scientists found elegant chemical synthesis pathways leading to their production under prebiotic conditions. At bottom, that's all they have as far as the actual science is concerned, other than outright apologetic fabrications and lies: whiny foot stomping and pointing to active research that hasn't yet produced a solution, only for this to look pathetic to those of us who paid attention in science class when the scientists produce a solution.

Calilasseia wrote:Actually, there's already a wealth of literature covering the underlying chemical syntheses. Montmorillonite catalytic synthesis of RNA already having been repeatedly demonstrated. And, we now have several routes to purine synthesis into the bargain, which was routinely peddled as a "gotcha" by creotard liars for doctrine until the scientists found elegant chemical synthesis pathways leading to their production under prebiotic conditions. At bottom, that's all they have as far as the actual science is concerned, other than outright apologetic fabrications and lies: whiny foot stomping and pointing to active research that hasn't yet produced a solution, only for this to look pathetic to those of us who paid attention in science class when the scientists produce a solution.

....Except that the routes to both purine and pyramidine synthesis have been under advanced laboratory conditions in a test tube, not prebiotic early Earth and its dissipative conditions.

laklak wrote:That's technically true, but far too nuanced for the average creationist. They're looking for that "Divine Spark" bit on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. They'd say "well yeah but what made the first replicator?"

Ah yes, the painting where Michelangelo had something else in mind for that spark.



The hidden messages of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel

Where is Edward Current when you need him?

Wortfish wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Actually, there's already a wealth of literature covering the underlying chemical syntheses. Montmorillonite catalytic synthesis of RNA already having been repeatedly demonstrated. And, we now have several routes to purine synthesis into the bargain, which was routinely peddled as a "gotcha" by creotard liars for doctrine until the scientists found elegant chemical synthesis pathways leading to their production under prebiotic conditions. At bottom, that's all they have as far as the actual science is concerned, other than outright apologetic fabrications and lies: whiny foot stomping and pointing to active research that hasn't yet produced a solution, only for this to look pathetic to those of us who paid attention in science class when the scientists produce a solution.

....Except that the routes to both purine and pyramidine synthesis have been under advanced laboratory conditions in a test tube, not prebiotic early Earth and its dissipative conditions.

Since all of the papers in question I have on the subject go into detail as to how they strive to replicate prebiotic Earth conditions, this apologetics fails.

laklak wrote:I've explained all this to you atheists before but you never listen. See, Noah took every kind on the boat with him. That's actually a lot less animals then you might think. For example, he took a couple of Monkey kind. That's kind of like a monkey. Then God took the two monkeys and made some of their children bigger, to be gorillas, because gorillas are kind of like monkeys. He then stretched the arms of some and make Orangutans, which are again kind of like monkeys. Chimps, howlers, rhesus, all kind of like monkeys. Same happened with donkeys. Donkeys are kind of like horses and horses ore kind of like zebras, right? Hamsters are kind of like gerbils, which are kind of like chinchillas, which are kind of like prairie dogs, which are kind of like meerkats, all the way up to nutrias and capybaras, which are both kind of like all the others. Don't forget beavers, they're kind of like that too. Etc. Etc. Etc., and bingo, 1 trillion species!

Easy peasy for Our Great and Loving Lord! Checkmate, atheists.

So, why did he need such a big boat? Wouldn't a dinghy for Noah and his family have sufficed and a test tube with one "kind" of DNA in it? No feed to worry about, no shit to shovel... god is great indeed!

Tero wrote:Where is Edward Current when you need him?

He's a POE, right?

At least he deigned to learn "one or two things in biology" before giving his performance.

The ignorance is jaw dropping.

PensivePenny wrote:He's a POE, right?

Right.

Calilasseia wrote:
Since all of the papers in question I have on the subject go into detail as to how they strive to replicate prebiotic Earth conditions, this apologetics fails.

It's not apologetics in the least. It is simply that a controlled experiment - especially one where the experimenter wants to make something happen - is not a plausible replicaiton of prebiotic conditions. The Sutherland lab was criticised in 2009 for using precursors that themselves were too complex to be readily explained and also for failing to reproduce their findings.