Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

My dictionary means you included ME when you made this statement.

Quote:

Evolutionists say 'well, the 2nd Law doesn't apply because the Earth gets lots of energy from the sun, more than enough to overcome entropy'.

However you then tried to claim you didn't mean me....

Quote:

Where did I say that YOU had said it?

So, you see why I asked for your definition.

You make statements then claim you didn't say them. Feel free to admit you included me or redefine "evolutionist" from the standard dictionary definition.

So, energy from the sun (according to this view) MUST be sufficient of and by itself to overcome entropy and build life out of dead chemicals.

So, think about it.

Are you SURE you disagree with it?

And if decide to come back to the fold, can you explain how energy can be harnessed and turned to productive work with NO mechanism for doing so?

real life wrote:

So, energy from the sun (according to this view) MUST be sufficient of and by itself to overcome entropy and build life out of dead chemicals.

So, think about it.

Are you SURE you disagree with it?

Disagree? Where did I say I disagreed? Providing a proof that shows it can occur is hardly disagreeing.

I would state it quite different from the way you attempt to bastardize the actual viewpoint. This is another example of your attempt to characterize an argument in your terms.

Life is nothing more than a self sustaining chemical reaction....

Quote:

And if decide to come back to the fold, can you explain how energy can be harnessed and turned to productive work with NO mechanism for doing so?

Who claimed energy could be harnessed without a mechanism? That would be your straw man again.

Energy from the sun is harnessed by chlorophyll using a chemical reaction. Does it violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics for a chemical reaction to take place when energy is added? Yes or no?

Is chlorophyll alive? Yes or no?

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So, energy from the sun (according to this view) MUST be sufficient of and by itself to overcome entropy and build life out of dead chemicals.

So, think about it.

Are you SURE you disagree with it?

Disagree? Where did I say I disagreed? Providing a proof that shows it can occur is hardly disagreeing.

Then I am not sure why you went to such pains to deny that you could be inferred as agreeing with the evolutionist that I had quoted.

parados wrote:

I would state it quite different from the way you attempt to bastardize the actual viewpoint. This is another example of your attempt to characterize an argument in your terms.

Life is nothing more than a self sustaining chemical reaction....

Yes, apparently you would state it differently.

This slick and simplistic statement ignores the origin of life and focuses on how life NOW can sustain itself, since there is a mechanism (DNA) in place to do so.

How did DNA originate?

Not thru random chemical reactions. Wake up.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

I would state it quite different from the way you attempt to bastardize the actual viewpoint. This is another example of your attempt to characterize an argument in your terms.

Life is nothing more than a self sustaining chemical reaction....

Yes, apparently you would state it differently.

This slick and simplistic statement ignores the origin of life and focuses on how life NOW can sustain itself, since there is a mechanism (DNA) in place to do so.

How did DNA originate?

Not thru random chemical reactions. Wake up.

Oh? What did the Shapiro article say again? DNA is NOT required for life.

Is it life when RNA catalyzes? Yes or no? If no then one of your previous argument fails. if yes, then this argument that DNA fails.

In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.

parados wrote:

Quote:

And if decide to come back to the fold, can you explain how energy can be harnessed and turned to productive work with NO mechanism for doing so?

Who claimed energy could be harnessed without a mechanism? That would be your straw man again.

Energy from the sun is harnessed by chlorophyll using a chemical reaction. Does it violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics for a chemical reaction to take place when energy is added? Yes or no?

Hello?

Chlorophyll is part of the mechanism.

parados wrote:

Is chlorophyll alive? Yes or no?

Chlorophyll is not alive.

I always found this experiment interesting.

WAAAAYYY back in '53 a couple of pretty smart guys actually produced oraganic matter from in-organic matter.

Quote:

In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.

I always found this experiment interesting.

WAAAAYYY back in '53 a couple of pretty smart guys actually produced oraganic matter from in-organic matter.

Quote:

In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

I would state it quite different from the way you attempt to bastardize the actual viewpoint. This is another example of your attempt to characterize an argument in your terms.

Life is nothing more than a self sustaining chemical reaction....

Yes, apparently you would state it differently.

This slick and simplistic statement ignores the origin of life and focuses on how life NOW can sustain itself, since there is a mechanism (DNA) in place to do so.

How did DNA originate?

Not thru random chemical reactions. Wake up.

Oh? What did the Shapiro article say again? DNA is NOT required for life.

Is it life when RNA catalyzes? Yes or no? If no then one of your previous argument fails. if yes, then this argument that DNA fails.

Shapiro did NOT say that he believed the RNA life scenario was correct.

Quite the opposite.

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades. The theories employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life, under a scheme put forth by Carl Sagan in the Encyclopedia Britannica: A localized region which increases in order (decreases in entropy) through cycles driven by an energy flow would be considered alive.

But, of course, methane is an organic compound.

Hmm.

But, of course, methane is an organic compound.

maporsche wrote:

I always found this experiment interesting.

WAAAAYYY back in '53 a couple of pretty smart guys actually produced oraganic matter from in-organic matter.

Quote:

In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.

Sorry, you are right.

I keep forgetting how closely this intricately planned experiment resembles blind chance.