Mystery of Life's Origin

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Experts discuss the question of abiogenesis. REAL experts that is, unlike academic dead wood and blowhards like "farmerman"....

Hey FM, you got top billing on the thread. Congratulations. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Experts discuss the question of abiogenesis. REAL experts that is, unlike academic dead wood and blowhards like "farmerman"....

To gunga, anyone associated with the Discovery Institute is an expert. Im a little bit more demanding.

Its a new year so its time for new boxes for his old stories.

I assume the book was peer reviewed by the DI and not any currently acceptable scientific academy or organization where membership and expertise is not conferred by simple belief in Biblical Inerrancy.

0 Replies

The question of abiogenesis is so daunting that the usual response of evolosers to anybody who starts to talk about it goes something like:

Quote:

Evolution and abiogenesis are separate topics and are not related at all. If you weren't so much of an asshole and an idiot, you'd know that.

That translates into plain English something like this:

Quote:

Hey, you know, if we get good enough with the ad-hominems, we might only have to defend one untenable bullshit ideological doctrine masquerading as a science theory, instead of two of them...

3 Replies

I was thinking that a2k was quiet recently because there haven't been any gunga postings, then, just like a bad penny, he showed up today.

I bet gunga considers Jeffrey Dahmer an expert on cuisine and the Jehovah's Witness who knocks on his door a guru.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Im afraid that your understanding of natural sciences is less than complete gunga. You attach yourself onto outrageous bits of "Coast to Coast " crap and miss what real science has to say.
The fact that life origins and evolution ARE separate disciplines makes no difference to you. Next time I need some disinformation Ill remember to put out a call to you.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

if we get good enough with the ad-hominems,

I like your calling the pot black. Seems you were the one who opened this thread with an ad hominem, no?

Youve never really had a big heap of credibility because of your beliefs in ARKS, PLANETARY FLOODS, IKA STONES, AGE OF THE EARTH,DINOSAUR FOSSIL EATING A HOMINID FOSSIL (remember that one?) etc etc.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

The question of abiogenesis is so daunting that the usual response of evolosers to anybody who starts to talk about it goes something like:

Quote:
Evolution and abiogenesis are separate topics and are not related at all. If you weren't so much of an asshole and an idiot, you'd know that.

Biological Evolution may not apply directly to abiogenesis, but I believe it has strong implications about what we can expect to find with regard to the chemical processes involved with abiogenesis. The implication is that we are going to find natural chemical processes involving replication and selection, resulting in disproportionate distributions of more replicative molecules.

0 Replies

Ya can't be Gunga Dim for comic relief, though . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Since life had probably started and crashed several times in the 3.9 BY period, I still submit that the two concepts have very little interacting scholarship. All we have evdence of in the "Dawn of Life" is a faint collection of carbon smudges in ancient 3.8 BY sedimnentary rocks. Here we can see that C12 is the preferred Carbon isotope in the laminae and all other older rocks contain C13. Thats all we know until the time that we can actually see the differentiation of life into its 3 major subtypes. (At that point we speculate about the possibility of an RNA or a sRNA world ). We just dont have any modes of reference and its mostly a study area for molecular biology and organic chemistry. biogeochemistry has not ruled out the possibility of structural bases of life that is centered about several elements besides carbon and phosphorus, so the joining of abiogenesis and evolution is functionally hardly possible as a discipline, most guys wouldnt know what to communicate to each other about, besides the basic rules of life.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

While it's technically accurate to say the Biological Evolution and (the probable processes of) Abiogenesis are not the same, I think what the Creationists have picked up on, is that if Biological Evolution can occur naturally (and we know it can), then it strongly implies that Abiogenesis can occur naturally as well. And in that sense Biological Evolution has implications for Abiogenesis. And this is what they're afraid of.

Also, the most basic tenets of Biological Evolution are really mechanical concepts more than organic processes. Variation, Replication and Selection, are the key forces required for evolution, but they are not necessarily restricted to organics, they could also apply to purely chemical processes.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Science rarely, if ever, designs its research programs in response to what some minor religious group has on its mind. I think we all understand theCreatinist tack, to which I say "so what?"
I get a kick out of several things they say
"We dont see any transitional fossils"
Then when we find a new transitional fossil, the CReationsits then state that all weve done is create TWO more gaps in data.
Remember the Creationsits arguments are usually a cobbling together of as many unrelated areas as they can manage.
"Evolution violates the Laws of Thermodynamics"

"Several planets are retrograde in their orbits , therefore the solar system hadda be created by an intelligence"
Loss of the magnetic flux back calculates that the earth is only 6k years old.

If they do wrong headed calculations , then Im sure that their conflation is equally as dumb.

Lets give em a bone and say that some "Intelligence" actually caused all the chemistry to create life. Qe can see that, from fossil evidence, this life proceeded a;long from very very simple to more and more complex and then even takes diversions to go back to the siple every now and again (all seemingly in response to major environmental changes that are left as fossil evidence in the geologic record). Basically, even if some intelligence founded life, it appears that he or she gave up thereafter and let adaptational evolution take over. No?

Evolution is evidence based, Genesis is not (no matter if its bio opr abio-No evidence at all until life first appears) Its all discussion and arm waving.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I get a kick out of several things they say, "We dont see any transitional fossils". Then when we find a new transitional fossil, the CReationsits then state that all weve done is create TWO more gaps in data.

Yeh, I get a kick out of that dimwitted attack too Smile

farmerman wrote:

Remember the Creationsits arguments are usually a cobbling together of as many unrelated areas as they can manage. "Evolution violates the Laws of Thermodynamics", "Several planets are retrograde in their orbits , therefore the solar system hadda be created by an intelligence", Loss of the magnetic flux back calculates that the earth is only 6k years old.

Gunga is also fond of the "it's mathematically impossible" idea, even while citing sources that obviously can't do math.

farmerman wrote:

Lets give em a bone and say that some "Intelligence" actually caused all the chemistry to create life. Qe can see that, from fossil evidence, this life proceeded a;long from very very simple to more and more complex and then even takes diversions to go back to the siple every now and again (all seemingly in response to major environmental changes that are left as fossil evidence in the geologic record). Basically, even if some intelligence founded life, it appears that he or she gave up thereafter and let adaptational evolution take over. No?

Yes. And it's also clear that once the Universe got started, natural processes produced all the heavy elements resulting in lots of exotic fertile (chemically) worlds.

It's irrational to insert the need for more tweaking right into the middle of two massively elegant natural processes. Especially right at the place where we just happen to have virtually no data to work with. That's just another attempt to use "God" as caulk to fill a crack.

0 Replies

Fascinatin' stuff guys . . . thanks.

0 Replies

Mystery of Life's Origin

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know