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

Well, we can see from your picture that your eyes are shut. :wink:

So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety. Laughing

neologist wrote:

Well, we can see from your picture that your eyes are shut. :wink:

well neo, maybe you can answer the questions posed of RL since he is incapable.

RL claimed the oceans were frozen 3 billion years ago. He stated lightning couldn't create life in puddles because there were no puddles when everything was frozen. I pointed out his interpretation of Miller was incorrect. They created lightning in an "atmosphere" and not puddles. His response was to imply there could be no water vapor in the air if the oceans were frozen. I pointed to several ways that water vapor enters the air even in a frozen environment. He responded by only dealing with volcanoes and declaring that water vapor from volcanoes would only be near the volcano. I pointed out this wasn't true. He whined about the air temperature that Miller used in experiments. I pointed out that lightning heats the air several tens of thousand degrees MORE than Miller used.

RLs response was this..

Quote:

So did all of these amino acids (formed by lightning) fall from high in the atmosphere into the same square foot of mud, and so have an opportunity to combine themselves , (of their own accord) , into the first self replicating molecule?

Or did they meet thru an amino dating service and have to travel a distance to get acquainted?

It is no wonder that Shapiro thought it beyond the realm of likelihood for first life to be of the 'replicator first' variety. Laughing

So was he implying that Shapiro agreed with him that the oceans were frozen or was he changing the subject because he couldn't respond to the criticisms of his frozen oceans and cold air bluster. RL certainly does NOT say he agrees with Shapiro on any point in his post. He only throws out Shapiro's opinion to attempt to deflect my argument without ever stating if he agrees or not. RL gets all upset when I read things into his statements but when I don't read things in he acts as if I should.

Shapiro postulated a 'metabolism first' start for life because as an award winning chemist, he considered the likelihood of a 'replicator first' start for life to be so remote as to be not worth consideration.

I agree with his assessment of the likelihood of life beginning as 'replicator first'. His favored solution , 'metabolism first' , however I consider as unlikely as well.

Shapiro didn't address the problem of the Faint Young Sun. I didn't state or imply that he did.

However, I raised the issue, and several others as indications of the problems that 'replicator first' scenarios, such as Miller-Urey, must overcome.

Whether you postulate the precursors to a replicator being formed in the atmosphere, on the ground, in the ocean, etc, you have huge obstacles of a practical nature to address.

So if you would like to be specific and say just where you think life began and how, we could have some fun. But I don't expect you to be any more forthcoming than previously, which is to say , not at all.

So..
To recap -

Real life has changed the meaning of "evolutionist" and then changed it back. He has misrepresented Miller-Utey's expirements. He has denied stating "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" He has claimed to have said on several occasions that "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" He has said it is a misapplication of the 2nd law to include energy transfer. He has never identified how you can possibly apply a formula if you don't include all parts of it specifically the part of energy transfer. He has failed to point to any errors in the math showing that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law. He has claimed the earth is not 3 billion years old. He has based his arguments on what the earth probably was 3 billion years ago. He has claimed that life can't come from adding energy. He quotes a scientist who's entire premise is that life comes from adding energy to support his claim that life can't come from energy.

real life wrote:

Shapiro postulated a 'metabolism first' start for life because as an award winning chemist, he considered the likelihood of a 'replicator first' start for life to be so remote as to be not worth consideration.

I agree with his assessment of the likelihood of life beginning as 'replicator first'. His favored solution , 'metabolism first' , however I consider as unlikely as well.

So you DISAGREE with the entire thrust of the article by Shapiro then. You only agree with one thing taken out of context.

real life wrote:

Shapiro didn't address the problem of the Faint Young Sun. I didn't state or imply that he did.

Then why did he enter the discussion about the Faint Young Sun? You have not told us that.

real life wrote:

Shapiro didn't address the problem of the Faint Young Sun.....However, I raised the issue, and several others as indications of the problems that 'replicator first' scenarios, such as Miller-Urey, must overcome.

So in other words your tactic is to throw as much **** as you can and hope some sticks because you can't make logical arguments in support of any of your claims.

real life wrote:

Whether you postulate the precursors to a replicator being formed in the atmosphere, on the ground, in the ocean, etc, you have huge obstacles of a practical nature to address.

And you have huge obstacles if you claim you agree with Shapiro but then state you don't agree with his basic premise.

Shapiro proposes that life came about from energy. You deny that life can come from energy. Shapiro proposed that complicated molecules are not the likely start of life. You agree that life can't come from energy.

Well, we can see from your picture that your eyes are shut. :wink:

Real life has changed the meaning of "evolutionist" and then changed it back. He has misrepresented Miller-Utey's expirements. He has denied stating "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" He has claimed to have said on several occasions that "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" He has said it is a misapplication of the 2nd law to include energy transfer. He has never identified how you can possibly apply a formula if you don't include all parts of it specifically the part of energy transfer. He has failed to point to any errors in the math showing that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law. He has claimed the earth is not 3 billion years old. He has based his arguments on what the earth probably was 3 billion years ago. He has claimed that life can't come from adding energy. He quotes a scientist who's entire premise is that life comes from adding energy to support his claim that life can't come from energy.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Shapiro didn't address the problem of the Faint Young Sun. I didn't state or imply that he did.

Then why did he enter the discussion about the Faint Young Sun? You have not told us that.

What do you mean 'why did he enter'?

He did not do anything.

Perhaps you should be a little more clear.

What is your question?

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Shapiro didn't address the problem of the Faint Young Sun.....However, I raised the issue, and several others as indications of the problems that 'replicator first' scenarios, such as Miller-Urey, must overcome.

So in other words your tactic is to throw as much **** as you can and hope some sticks because you can't make logical arguments in support of any of your claims.

I raised several objections to 'replicator first' scenarios.

Your only response to any objection has been mischaracterization, avoidance and stalling. As shown by your reply here.

parados wrote:

Shapiro proposes that life came about from energy. You deny that life can come from energy. Shapiro proposed that complicated molecules are not the likely start of life. You agree that life can't come from energy.

I have said that energy ALONE is not sufficient to account for overcoming entropy to the degree that dead chemicals will be able to produce the increased genetic information necessary for the wholesale construction of interdependent biological systems and chemical processes needed for even the most rudimentary living organism.

Do you understand why?

Energy must be harnessed, regulated and directed to achieve useful work.

Energy ALONE cannot produce information.

Here's a question:

Would a creationist refute the idea of lower level life being created and then evolving into the current flora and fauna?

Be careful.

T
K
O

neologist wrote:

Well, we can see from your picture that your eyes are shut. :wink:

Wide shut , apparently.

I think I may be wasting my time responding to parados' mischaracterizations, such as :

parados, in a effort to avoid discussing the origin of life wrote:

Real life has changed the meaning of "evolutionist" and then changed it back.

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'.

Where did I say that YOU had said it?

Have you a dictionary, parados?

He has misrepresented Miller-Utey's experiments.

----- the point is that a lightning shot to a puddle on the early earth wasn't a likely scenario to jumpstart the process of life.

He has denied stating "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" He has claimed to have said on several occasions that "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics"

My argument was simply a question (or two).

He has said it is a misapplication of the 2nd law to include energy transfer.

When evolutionists do so, and thus define everything as an open system (based on input of energy), then they put themselves in the ridiculous position of implying that the 2nd Law applies to absolutely nothing.

He has never identified how you can possibly apply a formula if you don't include all parts of it specifically the part of energy transfer.

He has failed to point to any errors in the math showing that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law.

He has claimed the earth is not 3 billion years old. He has based his arguments on what the earth probably was 3 billion years ago.

He has claimed that life can't come from adding energy. He quotes a scientist who's entire premise is that life comes from adding energy to support his claim that life can't come from energy.

neologist wrote:

Well, we can see from your picture that your eyes are shut. :wink:

well neo, maybe you can answer the questions posed of RL since he is incapable . . .

begin of funning

parados wrote:

neologist wrote:

Well, we can see from your picture that your eyes are shut. :wink:

well neo, maybe you can answer the questions posed of RL

end of funning and dead serious after this point


since he is incapable . . .