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

Generally scientists are of the opinion that a possible proof against the theory of evolution would be the existence of a fossilized house cat in pre-cambrian sandstone (or something to that effect).

What would a religious person accept as proof that their god(s) did not exist?

real life wrote:

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?

You suddenly brought him up in the discussion. You have not explained WHY you brought him up. Pretending you didn't bring him up doesn't explain your reasoning.

real life wrote:

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.

You made a stink by throwing **** but when asked to support any of your objections you failed to do so.
1. You have failed to show that the atmosphere was the same 3 bilion years ago. Instead you took a simple statement of "IF it was the same then oceans wouldn't be totally frozen" to make your claim that oceans WERE frozen.

2. You failed to respond when it was pointed out that lighting would heat air thousands of degrees hotter than the 200 degrees you complained about being too hot.

3. You failed to show that water vapor can not exist in cold air or how the way Miller put it in his sample was even relevent.

real life wrote:

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.

Ah, yes you have said this but in order to do it you have to completely ignore what Shapiro has written. There is no "genetic" information of DNA in his simple life forms.

Generally scientists are of the opinion that a possible proof against the theory of evolution would be the existence of a fossilized house cat in pre-cambrian sandstone (or something to that effect).

Generally scientists are of the opinion that a possible proof against the theory of evolution would be the existence of a fossilized house cat in pre-cambrian sandstone (or something to that effect).

What would a religious person accept as proof that their god(s) did not exist?

What would a religious person accept as proof that their god(s) did not exist?

THIS WEBSITE WILL ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS!

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

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?

You suddenly brought him up in the discussion. You have not explained WHY you brought him up. Pretending you didn't bring him up doesn't explain your reasoning.

I brought Shapiro into the discussion because I thought his perspective as an award winning chemist is relevant. He thinks that a replicator arising by natural processes is an extremely unlikely possibility.

He doesn't mention the Faint Sun as one of his factors. I consider it a relevant factor however.

It reduces the locations where significant chemical activity needed to pull off a Miller-Urey type miracle (and beyond) could occur.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

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.

You made a stink by throwing **** but when asked to support any of your objections you failed to do so.
1. You have failed to show that the atmosphere was the same 3 bilion years ago. Instead you took a simple statement of "IF it was the same then oceans wouldn't be totally frozen" to make your claim that oceans WERE frozen.

Dr Bada stated that a different atmosphere would mean, instead of totally frozen, only the top 300 meters would be frozen. And your response was zip. Did you understand that he made a distinction and addressed your objection?

Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Many people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.

And your response was zip.

real life wrote:

..... the Faint Sun ....... reduces the locations where significant chemical activity needed to pull off a Miller-Urey type miracle (and beyond) could occur.

Only if you can show anything about the atmosphere and the temperature. It has been pointed out to you a couple of times that the atmosphere used by Miller-Urey would be warmer in a faint yellow sun. You can't argue it is colder with the same atmosphere if you want to argue that Miller-Urey couldn't work because it was colder with a different atmosphere.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

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.

Ah, yes you have said this but in order to do it you have to completely ignore what Shapiro has written. There is no "genetic" information of DNA in his simple life forms.

But there is information. Just not in DNA.

He proposes storage of information in MULTIPLE small molecules.

What molecules do you know of that can store information and pass it on accurately?

Quote:

And the information must be generated first before it can be stored.

What mechanism do you propose for the initial production of the information that will allow a replication of the chemical processes taking place?

Entropy must be overcome, information generated, and information stored no matter if you propose the vehicle for doing such is small molecules or an xNA.

Same tasks must be accomplished.

In fact, proposing many small molecules as a replacement for DNA makes it very much more difficult.

More links in the chain to break.

More likelihood that the working system (if you manage to get one up and running at all) WON'T be replicated properly and the whole thing come to a screeching halt.

Your other solution , a 'greenhouse effect' is one that was taken into account by Dr Bada, and was shown to slightly mitigate but not reverse the cold climate (the oceans would 'ONLY' be frozen on the top 300 meters).

a reaction chain that converts A to B to C to D and back to A again.

parados wrote:

a reaction chain that converts A to B to C to D and back to A again.

And that would get you exactly where? Nowhere.

You need a process that goes from simple to complex to ultra complex.

You need a process that takes simple molecules and builds structures and interdependent systems.

If you are going to produce living organisms from simple dead chemicals you need a process that produces results.

A circular reaction does fit your style well though, I must say.

(4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution. We come now to the heart of the matter. Imagine for example that an energetically favorable redox reaction of a naturally-occurring mineral is linked to the conversion of an organic chemical A to another one B within a compartment. The favorable, energy releasing, entropy-increasing reaction of the mineral drives the A-to-B transformation. I call this key transformation a driver reaction, for it serves as the engine that mobilizes the organization process. If B simply reconverts back to A or escapes from the compartment, we would not be on a path that leads to increased organization. By contrast, if a multi-step chemical pathway--say, B to C to D to A--reconverts B to A, then the steps in that circular process (or cycle) would be favored because they replenish the supply of A, allowing the continuing discharge of energy by the mineral reaction.

If we visualize the cycle as a circular railway line, the energy source keeps the trains traveling around it one way. Each station may also be the hub for a number of branch lines, such as one connecting station D to another station, E. Trains could travel in either direction along that branch, depleting or augmenting the cycle's traffic. Thanks to the continual depletion of A, however, material is drawn from D to A. The resulting depletion of D in turn tends to draw material from E to D. In this way, material is "pulled" along the branch lines into the central cycle, maximizing the energy release that accompanies the driver reaction.

A circular reaction gets you life according to Shapiro. You didn't read him did you? You keep claiming things he didn't say. You keep denying things he DID say.

real life wrote:

Your other solution , a 'greenhouse effect' is one that was taken into account by Dr Bada, and was shown to slightly mitigate but not reverse the cold climate (the oceans would 'ONLY' be frozen on the top 300 meters).

LOL.. oh? Care to show me the abstract for the Bada paper that includes an atmosphere with lots of CO2 and frozen oceans?

The papers I see are he assumes the levels of CO2 are NOT elevated when the oceans are frozen. He then calculates that a large meteor would melt all the oceans releasing enough CO2 and other green house gases to keep the oceans from refreezing. Oops. the meteor just created the atmosphere that Miller-Utey used and the temperatures as well.

Once again you are using someone's argument and warping it for your own purpose without taking their ENTIRE argument into account.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=43134