Posted: Apr 13, 2010 7:50 am
by Darwinsbulldog
rainbow wrote:
Rumraket wrote:If you claim those papers do not constitute evidence, you may aswell say that there is "no evidence for macroevolution" since, noone has ever seen a fish turn in to a mammal. Its false on the same level.

There is a great deal of fossil evidence to support Evolution.
There is EXACTLY ZERO fossil evidence to support Abiogenesis.
Therefore you are wrong.

Well, not quite. While it is true that there are no mineralized old bones or teeth to support abiogenesis, there is some molecular evidence that is suggestive. Not strong, I would agree, but not totally absent either. Abiogenesis has not been proven to be wrong. There seems nothing "irreducibly complex" about abiogensis in principle, even though we can't say exactly how it happened, at least not yet, and perhaps for ever.

Several researchers have suggested possible ways in which life got started, and have successfully eliminated others that seem very unlikely in any credible early-Earth scenario.

For example, there is no need to assume that photosynthesis was needed right at the start, as production of "foods" such as sugars, amino acids and the like can be produced abiotically. So photosynthesis right at the beginning is something we can discount as unnecessary. Likewise, oxygen is an electron acceptor now, but sulfur could have played that role in the beginning. Two of the 20 biologically active amino acids contain sulfur. And so we go on.......