Why do people deny evolution?

You have me confused with Setanta on part of this, he is the one who says there is none.

My position is that biochemistry is a separate discipline from chemistry, and the science community agrees with me on this point. Chemistry and Biochemistry are related only in the same way that Concrete mixing and Architecture are. Just repeating the lie that they are the same is not a legitimate argument. I provided 3rd party opinion for my position, when are you going to?

It is Abiogenesis and Neo Evolution that are inextricably linked; on this we agree. One would have to be completely daft to believe in Darwinian Evolution once one was convinced that an intelligence was required for and involved in Abiogenesis. To pretend that it does not matter how the first event happened is avoidance or denial.

That's bullsh*t--don't try to drag me into your IDiot dodge.

Like to make **** up as you go along eh?
My first degree was in biochem (which is a sub set of ORGANIC chemistry), my first job was in resarch to use my biochem skills of Antibody/antigen chemistry to detect ores of Titanium and tantalum based on the antibody responses to the metal salts. when I went into geochem I maintained my connection with Ti and Ta and made a damned good living with these metals too. chemistry ALL OF IT, deals with the same rules and laws. You just dont wanna admit the relative simplicity of hemical binding ( most everything is surface, covalent, or ionic bonding) other binding is low %age.

Science aint a bunch of xtians jews muslims going off in different directions, the word of the future is INTERDISCIPLANARY.
Whats the difference between biochemistry and molecular biology ?? Do you think these guys only go to lunch with others of their order?



youre precious.

For the purposes of informal internet discussions, do you really think my or your claimed qualifications mean anything? They don't. As I said before, if it did I wouldn't give two cents for yours compared to James Tour. His makes your's look insignificant, and he agrees with my position.

But I don't play that game. If you want to compare academic dick length, go find someone else to do it with. If you can't bring independently verifiable facts about the relationship between chem and biochem to the table, I'm not interested.

You did say -


Then it raises no curiosity at all about how it happened? You are indeed more lacking in curiosity about existential questions than anyone I ever met , or possibly just willing to believe fairy tails about science having figured it out.
No crime there, but jeez, in that case you don't have to worry about me dragging you anywhere. No interest here. But if you wish to opine later, I may too if it's interesting. Not sorry if that bothers you.

No fairy tales, I just understand that the origins of life are irrelevant to evolution. If there is no life, there can be no evolution. Keep your schoolyard insults to yourself.

@Farmer, Set is the precious one.

really touchy when you dont make sense. Im really facinated at how you seem to demand the functional "separation" between the various disciplines of chemistry. If James Tour agrees with you then he too is unable to grasp the facts.
Try to relax , you seem a bit too up tight about work areas in which you have neither training nor xperience.

Imm going out or a few days as we head up to Maine to look at some damage to a boat shed.
Ive hired a finishing carpenter because the framing carpenter wasnt available.

. As an aside, even Darwin was clever enough to not busy himslf with Creationist BS when he was concerned with transmutation of already living creatures. Hed never have gotten anything done. However , the origin of life is a node point where all the chemistry disciplines meet aand coordinate. Organic hemistry coordinates with spectral P chem. Organic P chem and biochem coordinate with molecular chem. bio-Geochem coordinates with em all as evidence shows places on the planet where pre Cambrian heaps pf C12 seem to point to points of possible"test" origins of life, and polymer organic chemists help out in defining how chemical "baggies" form.

Nevertheless, the study of evolutionary processes, though they also coordinate with findings from the "origins guys" are usually too busy with their own stuff to play in another sandbox.

Technically Set is absolutely on the money, But its kinda funny that you, after loudly claiming that all those chemical disciplines are separate, youd now claim that evolution and "abiogenesis" are the same.
See how you often trip yourself up by "design"?

bye tel later. I should be back by Thurs.

Hope yer boat's OK. I've got some damage to repair on the airplane this week.

I didn't say they were the same, I said they were inextricably related. It fits your worldview to see them as unrelated, but even in the Neo Evolutionary realm they are. Both claim random chance was the key player in both happening. Without random chance you do not have either one. So how are they unrelated? And since in your view chem and biochem are the same, that WOULD make them literally the same, just a continuation of increase in complexity. Your world view makes a contradictory mess of it.

Notice that that contradiction does not exist in ID.

And if you are someday convinced that design is responsible for abiogenesis, would you then say that there is no chance it was involved in its evolution? To show that I'm arguing on a level field, I would find Darwinian evolution to be completely convincing if I was convinced design was not involved in abiogenesis.

It's almost as if no one wants to see that linkage for philosophical reasons. Or theological phobias or something. IDK.

This short video explains why time n chance is not enough for even just one protein (nevermind a whole cell) to assemble without an intelligent designer.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

incredible!

Regardless of all this evolution stuff, let us all acknowledge that Jesus was born in Beligum

What kind of evidence would you need to see to convince you that design was not involved in abiogenesis? Can you give a few examples?

To set the bar nice and low, I would say even just observing one simple protein being produced by random chance processes. ( take a look at my very last post for a 10 minute video )

I would also say observing any increase (macro-evolution) in genetic information At all.
Or a solid transitional fossil, or living ‘ transitional’ specie alive and well today.

I said earlier (as H&G posted) that a plausible natural path to the emergence of a functional protein (in a non biological environment) would be enough for me to reconsider my position on evolution. The emergence of a functional cell under those conditions would cause me to abandon ID altogether.

That seems more like a theory than evidence for the theory. Can you give an example of what type of "evidence" you would need to see?

Another worthwhile video.
Stephen Meyer on the John Ankerberg show.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pZyRgYZe6tM

Like I said, a lab grown functional protein where no pre-existing information is introduced from outside the experiment. The Miller-Urey experiment is often put forth as proof that 'natural' abiogenesis is possible. If that proves it, take those amino acids and continue the experiment, show me an experiment that results in a single functional protein.

If you want to argue that there is not enough time for a lab experiment to have such a random event to happen at the slow speed of such chemical interaction, then let's simulate those interactions in software and speed them up so that we can demonstrate that it is at least possible in the timeframe of our universe. Many (like farmer) claim to know that we understand all the chemical steps needed so there is no scientific reason not to run such a simulation. In fact, I'm sure such simulations have been done, and even without all the real world problems of contamination, preserving intermediate results between steps and after a trillion simulated years we are still waiting for that protein code jackpot.

How much lower could the bar be set?

I noticed you did not exclude divine intervention for this experiment??

(tongue in cheek) 'Dear God, please please please make this experiment work so i can prove you dont exist'

Funny if God says "well, you know how important it is that i never be discoverable by science, so, here you go" ZAP