Questioning Darwin

Frank Merton · **#381** by **Frank Merton** » Feb 24, 2014 2:14 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:That one cannot imagine how something could have happened is not evidence it did not happen but only evidence of limited imagination.

And being able to imagine something did happen is not evidence for it happening either.

Your point? That seems to go without saying.

questioner121 · **#382** by **questioner121** » Feb 24, 2014 2:14 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Frank Merton wrote:That one cannot imagine how something could have happened is not evidence it did not happen but only evidence of limited imagination.

And being able to imagine something did happen is not evidence for it happening either.

You mean like the origins of evolution?

Rumraket · **#383** by **Rumraket** » Feb 24, 2014 2:15 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
So your evidence for them being created from scratch is........?

They have a beginning and end.

That's not evidence they were "created from scratch".

If you look at the simplest known life forms closely you can see that a certain amount of complexity is required for it to function as life.

No, what I can see is that life as we know it now approximately 4 billion years after it's origin is highly evolved.

That doesn't mean there can't be a natural process that incrementally builds up such life. And it doesn't mean that what we find in life that exists today, is absolutely required for there to be some kind of life at all.

questioner121 wrote:There are no known natural processes which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see.

Evolution.

questioner121 wrote:Each life form has a beginning and an end which shows that it could not have existed forever.

Nobody believes it did.

questioner121 wrote:Non-life can be regarded as existing forever.

For as long as there has been time, sure.

questioner121 wrote:So because the life form has a beginning AND that beginning could not have come through any known natural processes

Perhaps you don't know of all natural processes. Do you think science has discovered everything there is to know about the natural world? :think:

questioner121 wrote: then in my opinion that is evidence that it was created from scratch.

That still does not follow logically.

questioner121 wrote:If the life form was an accumulation of natural processes which resulted in the life form then it should be possible to reproduce these or find many alternative ways to reproduce something similar that we see today.

Science is doing this as we speak.

questioner121 wrote:Failing that we have the ability to bypass natural process and create life from scratch.

No we don't, we are part of nature and subject to the same constraints. What we do is natural too.

questioner121 wrote:So far this has not been possible both at the molecular level and at a much higher level.

There are still many unanswered questions about the origin of life, that doesn't mean there isn't a natural answer. We still don't know very much about the earliest stages of life - the science is ongoing, it has not been worked on while informed by modern chemistry and physics for very long.

questioner121 wrote:So thinking about this rationally one can conclude that life was formed from scratch as there is other credible alternative.

I have just conclusively shown that nothing about your inference or the conclusion you reach, is in any way rational. It is non-sequitur upon non-sequitur.

Sendraks · **#384** by **Sendraks** » Feb 24, 2014 2:16 pm

questioner121 wrote:So where's your evidence of the origins of life? Please do show us the world is waiting.

Not going to look up abiogenesis then? No attempt to educate yourself?

Shrunk · **#385** by **Shrunk** » Feb 24, 2014 2:16 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
So, umm, you're trying to provide yet another illustration of the concept of the non-sequitor? Dude, we're so done with that. We've moved on to where you're supposed to provide your evidence that life was created by God from scratch. You're not supposed to providing examples of dumb, illogical arguments that have demonstrate nothing. Though, I have to admit, that above there is a beautiful example, so props for that.

So where's your evidence of the origins of life? Please do show us the world is waiting.

Dude, I already told you: We're done with the non-sequitors. We know you have a very strong ability to create examples of them. Now, can we move on?

Sendraks · **#386** by **Sendraks** » Feb 24, 2014 2:18 pm

questioner121 wrote:You mean like the origins of evolution?

Nothing imagined about the origins of evolutionary theory, the history of how the idea was developed is well documented.

Or do you mean the origins of life itself? Which is another matter entirely.

Rumraket · **#387** by **Rumraket** » Feb 24, 2014 2:18 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
So, umm, you're trying to provide yet another illustration of the concept of the non-sequitor? Dude, we're so done with that. We've moved on to where you're supposed to provide your evidence that life was created by God from scratch. You're not supposed to providing examples of dumb, illogical arguments that have demonstrate nothing. Though, I have to admit, that above there is a beautiful example, so props for that.

So where's your evidence of the origins of life? Please do show us the world is waiting.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059300
Structural Phylogenomics Reveals Gradual Evolutionary Replacement of Abiotic Chemistries by Protein Enzymes in Purine Metabolism

Abstract

The origin of metabolism has been linked to abiotic chemistries that existed in our planet at the beginning of life. While plausible chemical pathways have been proposed, including the synthesis of nucleobases, ribose and ribonucleotides, the cooption of these reactions by modern enzymes remains shrouded in mystery. Here we study the emergence of purine metabolism. The ages of protein domains derived from a census of fold family structure in hundreds of genomes were mapped onto enzymes in metabolic diagrams. We find that the origin of the nucleotide interconversion pathway benefited most parsimoniously from the prebiotic formation of adenine nucleosides. In turn, pathways of nucleotide biosynthesis, catabolism and salvage originated ~300 million years later by concerted enzymatic recruitments and gradual replacement of abiotic chemistries. Remarkably, this process led to the emergence of the fully enzymatic biosynthetic pathway ~3 billion years ago, concurrently with the appearance of a functional ribosome. The simultaneous appearance of purine biosynthesis and the ribosome probably fulfilled the expanding matter-energy and processing needs of genomic information.

questioner121 · **#388** by **questioner121** » Feb 24, 2014 2:20 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:So where's your evidence of the origins of life? Please do show us the world is waiting.

Not going to look up abiogenesis then? No attempt to educate yourself?

It's you who needs to read up on it. You believe in things without even understanding them.

Sendraks · **#389** by **Sendraks** » Feb 24, 2014 2:21 pm

questioner121 wrote:It's you who needs to read up on it. You believe in things without even understanding them.

Right, so youy're saying I should go educate myself on the origins of life so I understand it better, but you refuse to do so yourself?

For someone who calls themselves "questioner" you're not very big on learning are you?

Shrunk · **#390** by **Shrunk** » Feb 24, 2014 2:23 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:So where's your evidence of the origins of life? Please do show us the world is waiting.

Not going to look up abiogenesis then? No attempt to educate yourself?

It's you who needs to read up on it. You believe in things without even understanding them.

Too bad you wasted your time posting that reference, Rumraket. Questioner121's already read it, it seems.

Newmark · **#391** by **Newmark** » Feb 24, 2014 2:26 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
So your evidence for them being created from scratch is........?

They have a beginning and end.

That's not evidence they were "created from scratch".

If you look at the simplest known life forms closely you can see that a certain amount of complexity is required for it to function as life. There are no known natural processes which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see.

Are there any known non-natural processes which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see? Yes or no?

If there aren't, you should revise you argument to "There are no known processes, natural or non-natural, which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see", otherwise, you're just being dishonest.

Rumraket · **#392** by **Rumraket** » Feb 24, 2014 2:29 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:So where's your evidence of the origins of life? Please do show us the world is waiting.

Not going to look up abiogenesis then? No attempt to educate yourself?

It's you who needs to read up on it. You believe in things without even understanding them.

It's you who needs to read up on it. You believe in things without even understanding them.

Shrunk · **#393** by **Shrunk** » Feb 24, 2014 2:29 pm

Newmark wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
They have a beginning and end.

That's not evidence they were "created from scratch".

If you look at the simplest known life forms closely you can see that a certain amount of complexity is required for it to function as life. There are no known natural processes which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see.

Are there any known non-natural processes which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see? Yes or no?

If there aren't, you should revise you argument to "There are no known processes, natural or non-natural, which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see", otherwise, you're just being dishonest.

Except that there is such a natural process: Embryogenesis

Newmark · **#394** by **Newmark** » Feb 24, 2014 2:34 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Newmark wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
That's not evidence they were "created from scratch".

If you look at the simplest known life forms closely you can see that a certain amount of complexity is required for it to function as life. There are no known natural processes which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see.

Are there any known non-natural processes which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see? Yes or no?

If there aren't, you should revise you argument to "There are no known processes, natural or non-natural, which could have resulted in the structures and behaviours we see", otherwise, you're just being dishonest.

Except that there is such a natural process: Embryogenesis

Why, yes, but that doesn't illuminate the double standards in quite the same way

questioner121 · **#395** by **questioner121** » Feb 24, 2014 2:37 pm

Rumraket wrote:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059300
Structural Phylogenomics Reveals Gradual Evolutionary Replacement of Abiotic Chemistries by Protein Enzymes in Purine Metabolism
Abstract

The origin of metabolism has been linked to abiotic chemistries that existed in our planet at the beginning of life. While plausible chemical pathways have been proposed, including the synthesis of nucleobases, ribose and ribonucleotides, the cooption of these reactions by modern enzymes remains shrouded in mystery. Here we study the emergence of purine metabolism. The ages of protein domains derived from a census of fold family structure in hundreds of genomes were mapped onto enzymes in metabolic diagrams. We find that the origin of the nucleotide interconversion pathway benefited most parsimoniously from the prebiotic formation of adenine nucleosides. In turn, pathways of nucleotide biosynthesis, catabolism and salvage originated ~300 million years later by concerted enzymatic recruitments and gradual replacement of abiotic chemistries. Remarkably, this process led to the emergence of the fully enzymatic biosynthetic pathway ~3 billion years ago, concurrently with the appearance of a functional ribosome. The simultaneous appearance of purine biosynthesis and the ribosome probably fulfilled the expanding matter-energy and processing needs of genomic information.

Beginning should have read:

The origin of metabolism has been linked to abiotic chemistries that we think existed in our planet at the beginning of life.

It's absolutely dishonest and disgraceful that scientific works contain wording like this. It's now so common for the media to use wording like "millions of years ago x, y and z happened" and "this animal evolved from it's ancestor millions of years ago" that no wonder the general population is deceived into believing the bullshit about ToE. It's such a shame that people can no longer even discuss whether common ancestry is true for fear of being mocked or ridiculed.....well all that's going to end in this thread... :bat:

Frank Merton · **#396** by **Frank Merton** » Feb 24, 2014 2:41 pm

It seems to me that the answer is natural selection and the questioner is being less than forthright if she doesn't know what that is.

Once reproducing life was underway the development over billions of years produced what we have now. It makes good sense to all except those who don't want to see it.

The question of the initial start of life is similarly easy; give the oceans a few billion years in a reducing atmosphere and lots of sources of energy and it happens. It would appear billions of years are not needed, not even millions.

Frank Merton · **#397** by **Frank Merton** » Feb 24, 2014 2:45 pm

I appear to have messed up on an earlier message.

Asians interestingly do not have the problem admitting we are descended from animals that Westerners seem to have. Indeed, it has always seemed obvious to all the Asian religions. We live and breathe and reproduce and die and have the same chemicals and same emotions and the same senses and even have the same basic body structures as other animals. Of course we are animals descended from animals.

questioner121 · **#398** by **questioner121** » Feb 24, 2014 2:48 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:It's you who needs to read up on it. You believe in things without even understanding them.

Right, so youy're saying I should go educate myself on the origins of life so I understand it better, but you refuse to do so yourself?

For someone who calls themselves "questioner" you're not very big on learning are you?

I looked up abiogenesis when I first joined this forum some years ago. I've tried my best to read up on all the links posters advise me to. The problem I see, and I don't mean it in a bad way, is that the posters don't understand how it fits in with this topic. The science of posts are great, I have no arguments about them. It's the conclusions and how they fit in with the topic which I'm having a hard time getting across.

Hopefully once we've uncovered what common ancestry is it'll be more clear.

Sendraks · **#399** by **Sendraks** » Feb 24, 2014 2:48 pm

questioner121 wrote:It's absolutely dishonest and disgraceful that scientific works contain wording like this.

Why?

questioner121 wrote: It's now so common for the media to use wording like "millions of years ago x, y and z happened" and "this animal evolved from it's ancestor millions of years ago" that no wonder the general population is deceived into believing the bullshit about ToE.

Blame the media then for doing crappy reporting and blame the public for lapping up what the media sells them.

questioner121 wrote:It's such a shame that people can no longer even discuss whether common ancestry is true for fear of being mocked or ridiculed.....well all that's going to end in this thread...

If people shouldn't be mocked for their arguments, no matter how ridiculous.
But ridiculous arguments most certainly should be ridiculed.

questioner121 · **#400** by **questioner121** » Feb 24, 2014 2:49 pm

Frank Merton wrote:

Once reproducing life was underway the development over billions of years produced what we have now. It makes good sense to all except those who don't want to see it.

The question of the initial start of life is similarly easy; give the oceans a few billion years in a reducing atmosphere and lots of sources of energy and it happens. It would appear billions of years are not needed, not even millions.

Sorry but this is fantasy.

Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Re: Questioning Darwin

Who is online