Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#61  Postby Wortfish » Dec 19, 2017 2:24 pm

Calilasseia wrote:

But it's typical of creationist apologetics to misrepresent said research, not to mention peddle the usual duplicitous pairing of responses to the outcome, namely:

[1] If the reactions in the experiment fail to produce a relevant result, claim that this purportedly "proves" testable natural process cannot be responsible for life;

[2] If the reactions in the experiment succeed in producing a relevant result, claim that this purportedly involves "design", when it does nothing of the sort.

What part of "we don't know if it will work when we begin, let's try it and see" equals "design" of the sort creationists routinely pontificate about? Oh that's right, it doesn't, because the sort of "design" creationists routinely pontificate about, involves perfect prior knowledge of the outcome. Except that, oops, scientists have never had this.

A controlled and designed experiment hardly involves trial and error, as you ridiculously suggest. The experimenters may not know the final outcome, but they select materials and reagents with a good view to what may happen, as Sutherland obviously did when he first published his results in 2009.

But if no one is around to observe whether or not the reactions are actually working, what's the fucking point of doing the experiment? That's the whole fucking point of experiments in case you failed to read the memo - try something out, and learn from the outcome!


Observation is fine. But setting up the stages of the experiment in such a way that isolates the materials from each other, is just form of artificial selection for non-living chemicals.

Try because the moment one set of reactions works, and produces viable protocells, those protocells are going to interfere with any subsequent different sets of reactions that might work. At the very least, by consuming the reactants or products as food.


At the moment, protocells are being purposefully designed as proofs of concept. Do pay attention.

This is why scientists are looking for other venues, to see if life appeared there. So that they have more than one instance to work with. Because the moment any set of chemical reactions succeeds in producing life, the products of that set of reactions will, by definition, shut down any other options.


Nobody is trying to produce life through a series of chemical reactions. They are trying to break up the huge problem into smaller parts that may or not be solvable. The first stage is producing lipids, amino acids and nucleic bases. That's still a long way from "life".

A statement whose fatuous nature will only become even more apparent, the moment life is found on Titan, Enceladus or Europa.


Well. You are basing your claim on faith. But the fact remains that - here on Earth - the process has never been repeated. Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years. Miracles, by their very nature, do not happen with any regularity....which is what we see with the origin of life.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#62  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 19, 2017 2:32 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:You see, in the wild, complex molecules are always being broken down into simpler constituents.


Wow. I mean, I know you always write stupid shit here. But, just, wow. You've really floored me this time.


I'm glad you see the problem. Chemical evolution expects the opposite of what is natural to happen.

Really?? You have outdone yourself in absurdity this time, Wortfish!
The ONLY conclusion one can draw from that post is that you think chemical evolution has been guided by some entity - perhaps by a magic man in the sky?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#63  Postby Rumraket » Dec 19, 2017 4:05 pm

Wortfish wrote:Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years.

Another nonsensical statement from you. The Earth itself has only formed once. So has the continent of Africa, or the Himalayas. All of these are natural phenomena that has only happened once.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#64  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 19, 2017 6:26 pm

Wortfish wrote:But the fact remains that - here on Earth - the process has never been repeated.


I don't know what you're basing that claim on :dunno:
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 9171
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#65  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 19, 2017 6:46 pm

Wortfish wrote:But the fact remains that - here on Earth - the process has never been repeated.

So what?

Wortfish wrote: Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years.

This assertion is incoherent.

Wortfish wrote: Miracles, by their very nature, do not happen with any regularity

False. Miracles are by definition supernatural. If they occur regularly, but supernaturally they're still miracles.

Wortfish wrote:....which is what we see with the origin of life.

Nope.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31068
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#66  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 19, 2017 6:52 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years.

Another nonsensical statement from you. The Earth itself has only formed once. So has the continent of Africa, or the Himalayas. All of these are natural phenomena that has only happened once.

No shit, eh? That's the sort of crap that passes for logic with creationists.

How does one live to adulthood with that kind of handicap?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21008
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#67  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 19, 2017 7:05 pm

The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.

In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting "an almost instantaneous emergence of life" after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.


Keep It Real wrote:
Wortfish wrote:But the fact remains that - here on Earth - the process has never been repeated.


I don't know what you're basing that claim on :dunno:


I doubt subsequent incidences of abiogenesis would get very far because of all the predatory/fit/ravenous/advanced enzymes and lifeforms. I mean talk about a babe in the woods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 9171
Age: 39

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#68  Postby Wortfish » Dec 19, 2017 8:21 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years.

Another nonsensical statement from you. The Earth itself has only formed once. So has the continent of Africa, or the Himalayas. All of these are natural phenomena that has only happened once.

Maybe. But earth-like planets have formed and are probably still being formed. There is no getting out of the fact that abiogenesis is a one-off event, and not a natural process. You can explain it either by astronomically improbable odds...or purposeful design.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#69  Postby Shrunk » Dec 19, 2017 8:29 pm

Wortfish wrote: Maybe. But earth-like planets have formed and are probably still being formed.


But it has only happened once on Earth, hasn't it?

There is no getting out of the fact that abiogenesis is a one-off event.


Here on Earth, that is. Are you really claiming to know it has not happened anywhere else in the universe? You're getting a bit ahead of yourself, aren't you?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#70  Postby Shrunk » Dec 19, 2017 8:31 pm

Wortfish wrote:You can explain it either by astronomically improbable odds...or purposeful design.


Because life being designed purposely by non-living things is not a one-off event, but is observed to happen all the time, everywhere. Oh, wait....
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#71  Postby TopCat » Dec 19, 2017 9:36 pm

Wortfish wrote:There is no getting out of the fact that abiogenesis is a one-off event, and not a natural process. You can explain it either by astronomically improbable odds...or purposeful design.

Argument from personal incredulity, false dichotomy, and begging the question (assuming the conclusion) in just two sentences.

Very nice work.
TopCat
 
Posts: 772
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#72  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 19, 2017 9:45 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:You can explain it either by astronomically improbable odds...or purposeful design.

Because life being designed purposely by non-living things is not a one-off event, but is observed to happen all the time, everywhere. Oh, wait....

Sauce for the goose.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21008
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#73  Postby zulumoose » Dec 20, 2017 6:17 am

How do we know how many times abiogenesis has happened?
Where is the solid reasoning that supports it having never happened on Earth before or after the supposed single event?
How do we know that there are not successful life forms today that had their origin in a separate event, never mind unsuccessful ones, that are by their very nature biodegradable and unlikely to leave evidence we would have found and identified as a product of separate abiogenesis.

Certainly, there is no way we can determine that it has not happened elsewhere in the universe, perhaps even relatively close and often, we just can't say at this point.

We also can't say how unlikely it is, because until we know how it can work, we can't investigate other ways of achieving it, or other possible types of abiogenesis in either the same or vastly different environments.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3624

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#74  Postby Sendraks » Dec 20, 2017 11:17 am

zulumoose wrote:How do we know how many times abiogenesis has happened?


Indeed.
The fossil record and the cambrian explosion do not provide clarity on whether any of those early lifeforms that didn't produce descendant species, were products of different abiogensis events. We know that life on earth today is the product of one abiogensis event but, that doesn't preclude there being other events at the same time which simply didn't produce lifeforms that were successful.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#75  Postby Rumraket » Dec 20, 2017 11:45 am

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years.

Another nonsensical statement from you. The Earth itself has only formed once. So has the continent of Africa, or the Himalayas. All of these are natural phenomena that has only happened once.

Maybe. But earth-like planets have formed and are probably still being formed.

And life could be forming on them.

Still, the continent of Africa. Or any other continent. Or any particular mountain, or river. Any particular tree is a unique structure. There are no other trees exactly like it. The way the atoms in the wind moves is unique and follows a pattern that will never be exactly repeated in the age of the universe. The entire history of the universe is a series of "one off" events following each other.

Simply put, how many times something happens (1, 10, 50 or 80 trillion times or more), is not in any way an indication of whether it is a natural event or not.

There are rare natural events that happen once every 10 years, once every 4000 years, once every 250 million years, once every 10 billion years and more. At no point on that scale does it pass from being "natural but rare" to "supernatural".

Wortfish wrote:There is no getting out of the fact that abiogenesis is a one-off event, and not a natural process.

Except that that isn't known to be a fact. Abiogenesis might be so rare that it only happens on an Earth-like planet once 5 billion years. That means over the next 5 trillion years, it will happen a thousand times in the universe. How do you know it is not simply a natural event with a low likelihood like that?

The only data you have is that all life we currently know of seems to share common descent, which implies we are all the result of a single origin of life. Nothing about this tells you whether there were multiple origin of life events that subsequently went extinct due to competition or environmental catastrophes, nor does it tell you what is going on on other planets in the universe where the conditions are right.

You can't extrapolate a trend from an observation of 1 event that you didn't even observe. And to make matters worse for your case here, you certainly can't make pronouncements on the fundamental nature of such an event (whether it is "natural" or "supernatural").

[quote="Wortfish";p="2605039"]You can explain it either by astronomically improbable odds...or purposeful design.[/quote}
You can explain anything by purposeful design. Even an empty universe without life could be "what the designer wanted". You can also explain "why did she get lung cancer, she never smoked?" with purposeful design. You can also explain "why did my toddler die to Leukemia?" with purposeful design.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#76  Postby Keep It Real » Dec 20, 2017 11:53 am

Rumraket wrote:How do you know it is not simply a natural event with a low likelihood like that?


Or, indeed, a natural event with a high likelihood...
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 9171
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#77  Postby zulumoose » Dec 20, 2017 12:11 pm

Sendraks wrote:We know that life on earth today is the product of one abiogensis event but, that doesn't preclude there being other events at the same time which simply didn't produce lifeforms that were successful.


How do we know that they weren't successful? How do we know that there weren't multiple identical or similar abiogenesis events in the same period in areas where the conditions were similar? How could we realistically determine that we are all descended from event A in a muddy puddle X many years ago, but no current life on earth, not even a simple virus, could be descended from event B in a similar muddy puddle 1000 years later 100 km away, etc?
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3624

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#78  Postby Sendraks » Dec 20, 2017 12:17 pm

zulumoose wrote:How do we know that they weren't successful?


A fair point, given the grounds for "success" are not specified and some of those species could have existed for millions of years, which is more than homo sapiens has managed.

If "success" is taken to mean that those abiogenesis events lead to species that are alive today, then as we know all extant life on earth is genetically related, it would be unlikely that any of that was the result of a different abiogenesis event. I say that, without knowing what the likelihood of abiogenesis events producing identical genetic material area.

zulumoose wrote:How do we know that there weren't multiple identical or similar abiogenesis events in the same period in areas where the conditions were similar?

Exactly!

zulumoose wrote:How could we realistically determine that we are all descended from event A in a muddy puddle X many years ago, but no current life on earth, not even a simple virus, could be descended from event B in a similar muddy puddle 1000 years later 100 km away, etc?

Viruses are not considered to be life.

Beyond that, aside from the genetics issue, we don't know.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#79  Postby zulumoose » Dec 20, 2017 12:30 pm

Viruses are not considered to be life


Well that got me googling!

It appears that there is a lot of argument and debate around the subject, I don't know a lot about biology so I'm not going to delve too deeply, but it certainly appears to be a hazy line.

Makes me wonder if viruses were a separate incomplete abiogenesis event, only managing to hang on parasitically to already established life, and would have been doomed to failure in any earlier instance.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3624

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#80  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 20, 2017 3:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

But it's typical of creationist apologetics to misrepresent said research, not to mention peddle the usual duplicitous pairing of responses to the outcome, namely:

[1] If the reactions in the experiment fail to produce a relevant result, claim that this purportedly "proves" testable natural process cannot be responsible for life;

[2] If the reactions in the experiment succeed in producing a relevant result, claim that this purportedly involves "design", when it does nothing of the sort.

What part of "we don't know if it will work when we begin, let's try it and see" equals "design" of the sort creationists routinely pontificate about? Oh that's right, it doesn't, because the sort of "design" creationists routinely pontificate about, involves perfect prior knowledge of the outcome. Except that, oops, scientists have never had this.


A controlled and designed experiment hardly involves trial and error, as you ridiculously suggest.


Except that this manifestly duplicitous apologetic pseudo-response, fails to take into account that the reason experiments are "designed", is to ensure that only a well-defined set of variables has an effect upon the outcome. This does not in any way presuppose that those designing the experiment, know in advance what oucome those variables will produce, the determination of which is the whole point of the experiment. Then, having determined that one, restricted and manageable set of variables delivers an observed outcome, the researchers then move on to other experiments, that include other variables excluded from the first experiment, to see how that modifies the outcome.

But of course, those of us who paid attention in science class already know that the purpose of experimental design, is to determine which extant variables affect an outcome, and then to let those variables act as they will. In case you don't understand this elementary concept, selecting a variable to observe doesn't equal directing that variable's behaviour. Though I'm familiar with the manner in which creationist apologetics are deliberately constructed to mislead the audience with respect to this concept.

Wortfish wrote:The experimenters may not know the final outcome


Exactly. Which at a stroke destroys creationist attempts to portray the requisite experimental work as having anything to do with "design", of the sort creationists routinely pontificate about, as I've already dealt with earlier.

Wortfish wrote:but they select materials and reagents with a good view to what may happen, as Sutherland obviously did when he first published his results in 2009.


Oh, wait, what did Sutherland actually state in his 2009 paper? Let's take a look at this shall we?

First, the citation:

Synthesis Of Activated Pyrimidine Riboucleotides In Prebiotically Plausible Conditions by Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland, Nature, 459: 239-242 (14th May 2009) [Full paper downloadable from here]

From the paper:

Powner et al, 2009 wrote:Because they comprise phosphate, ribose and nucleobases, it is tempting to assume that ribonucleotides must have prebiotically assembled from such building blocks. Thus, for example, it has previously been supposed that the activated ribonucleotide β-ribocytidine- 2',3'-cyclic phosphate 1must have been produced by phosphorylation of the ribonucleoside 2, with the latter deriving from the conjoining of the free pyrimidine nucleobase cytosine 3 and the furanose form of ribose 4 (Fig. 1, blue arrows). This mode of assembly is seemingly supported by the facts that cytosine 3 can be synthesized by condensation of cyanoacetaldehyde 5 and urea 616 (the hydration products of cyanoacetylene 717, and cyanamide 818, respectively) and pentoses including ribose can be produced by aldol reaction of glyceraldehyde 9 and glycolaldehyde 108,9. The insuperable problem with this approach, however, is that one of the presumed steps, the condensation of ribose 4 and cytosine 3 does not work11. The reasons for this are both kinetic (the N1 lone pair of 3 is unavailable owing to delocalization) and, in water, thermodynamic (the equilibrium constant is such that hydrolysis of 2 to 3 and 4 is favoured over condensation). The same is true for ribosylation of uracil, which has also not been demonstrated.

We have considered a large number of alternative ribonucleotide assembly modes, including those that extend back to the same small-molecule precursors as the traditionally assumed route described above19. By systematic experimental investigation of these options, we have discovered a short, highly efficient route to activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides from these same precursors that proceeds by way of alternative intermediates (Fig. 1, green arrows). By contrast with previously investigated routes to ribonucleotides, ours bypasses ribose and the free pyrimidine nucleobases. Mixed nitrogenous–oxygenous chemistry first results in the reaction of cyanamide [b]8 and glycolaldehyde 10, giving 2-amino-oxazole 11, and this heterocycle then adds to glyceraldehyde 9 to give the pentose amino-oxazolines including the arabinose derivative 12. Reaction of 12 with cyanoacetylene 7 then gives the anhydroarabinonucleoside 13, which subsequently undergoes phosphorylation with rearrangement to furnish β-ribocytidine- 2',3'-cyclic phosphate 1. In a subsequent photochemical step, 1 is partly converted to the corresponding uracil derivative, and synthetic co-products are largely destroyed.[/b]


Note the part I've highlighted in blue above - namely:

We have considered a large number of alternative ribonucleotide assembly modes, including those that extend back to the same small-molecule precursors as the traditionally assumed route described above19. By systematic experimental investigation of these options

In other words, what they did was "let's try lots of different options, and see if any of them work". Which they did because the assumed mechanism was found NOT to work.

So, the experimental procedure here consisted of:

[1] We know what we need to start with, and what we need to end up with;

[2] We also know that the original planned means of getting from A to B does not work, and we have found reasons for this;

[3] Do other routes from A to B exist, and if so, can we find them?

[4] Let's try out lots of options for getting from A to B, and see which ones work or don't work.

Again, your apologetics are completely destroyed.

Moving on ...

Wortfish wrote:
But if no one is around to observe whether or not the reactions are actually working, what's the fucking point of doing the experiment? That's the whole fucking point of experiments in case you failed to read the memo - try something out, and learn from the outcome!


Observation is fine. But setting up the stages of the experiment in such a way that isolates the materials from each other, is just form of artificial selection for non-living chemicals.


Illiterate drivel. Because, wait for it, the researchers have to introduce the reagents in question to each other, to see if they will react!

But. once again, the whole fucking point of choosing reagents of known purity to start with, is so that the researchers know that the molecules they've chosen have been the sole participants in the reaction, and not something else they didn't know about. Only a fucking idiot would launch into an investigation of any chemical reaction, without knowing in advance what molecules he was dealing with.

Wortfish wrote:
Try because the moment one set of reactions works, and produces viable protocells, those protocells are going to interfere with any subsequent different sets of reactions that might work. At the very least, by consuming the reactants or products as food.


At the moment, protocells are being purposefully designed as proofs of concept. Do pay attention.


Model protocells are being thus synthesised, with the aim of finding out what could have happened with real, past protocells, precisely because we don't know the latter yet. Once again, what part of "let's work with as simple a precursor as we can, and move on incrementally to the desired objective" do you not understand?

Once again, those model protocells were synthesised, because the researchers didn't know in advance what they would do. Years of observing other chemical reactions gave them some basic ideas to work with, but, as was the case with the Sutherland paper above, they're open to surprises.

Indeed, for years, many people thought that if you dropped a light ball and a heavy ball from the top of a building, the heavy ball would hit the ground first. It took Galileo to turn round and say "Let's try it out and see shall we?" Whereupon, whoops, what a lot of people thought beforehand was wrong.

Wortfish wrote:
This is why scientists are looking for other venues, to see if life appeared there. So that they have more than one instance to work with. Because the moment any set of chemical reactions succeeds in producing life, the products of that set of reactions will, by definition, shut down any other options.


Nobody is trying to produce life through a series of chemical reactions.


Actually, that's the ultimate aim - to see if a working replicating protocell can arise from prebiotic reactants. But to get to that stage, the researchers have to solve a lot of lower level jigsaw puzzles before solving the big one. Once again, what part of "incremental steps" do you not understand?

Wortfish wrote:They are trying to break up the huge problem into smaller parts that may or not be solvable.


So why did you post the previous drivel?

Wortfish wrote:The first stage is producing lipids, amino acids and nucleic bases. That's still a long way from "life".


But since these molecules are manifestly a part of living organisms, it's a good place to start. As opposed to assuming that mythology magically has the answers, which it doesn't.

Wortfish wrote:
A statement whose fatuous nature will only become even more apparent, the moment life is found on Titan, Enceladus or Europa.


Well. You are basing your claim on faith.


Bollocks. I merely introduced a conditional. Namely, "if x, then y". I issued no statement on whether or not x was true. Because, like everyone else here on Earth at the moment, I don't know. Which is one of the reasons NASA is planning to send spacecraft to the requisite venues, - to find out.

Wortfish wrote:But the fact remains that - here on Earth - the process has never been repeated.


You know this for sure, do you?

Only it's entirely possible that more than one instance of the requisite reactions took place in the past, but only the final instance was successful at leaving present day descendants.

Wortfish wrote:Naturally-occurring phenomena tend to happen more than just once in 4 billion years.


Particular instances, however, only ever occur once. The goal of science is to find the classes of interaction that generate the instances. Or did you miss this elementary concept in school?

Wortfish wrote:Miracles, by their very nature, do not happen with any regularity


Wrong. It's entirely possible, if miracles exist, for them to do so, if the generating process for them occurs more than once.

Wortfish wrote:...which is what we see with the origin of life.


Poppycock. What we see with the origin of life, is one successful instance, with as yet, no data telling us about any previous failed instances.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22074
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest