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

parados wrote:

Hmm.. it seems you are now saying that amino acids COULD survive.

No, I'm simply trying to point out that EVEN IF the proposed amino acids produced in the 'atmosphere' DID survive, you still have them falling to earth and being so spread out geographically as to be of no use.

We've discussed this before, parados.

You didn't get it then, and I don't know if you'll get it now.

Moreover, the assumed reducing atmosphere that Miller used did not contain oxygen, since the presence of this ingredient would oxidize any amino acids they hoped to produce.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

real life wrote:

Moreover, the assumed reducing atmosphere that Miller used did not contain oxygen, since the presence of this ingredient would oxidize any amino acids they hoped to produce.

It seems at one point you felt Miller did use an atmosphere that wouldn't destroy them. Has the chemistry changed now? If so, please tell us how it change?

Many current models of the early earth's atmosphere (proposed by those sympathetic to evolution) include large amounts of CO2 and nitrogen; the resultant nitrites would also be an effective destroyer of amino acids.

Miller tried to come up with an 'atmosphere' that wouldn't destroy as fast as the intelligent designers of the experiment could create.

I had simply noted what he had attempted to do, and why.

It doesn't mean his 'atmosphere' really existed.

If I earlier left the impression that I thought Miller had accurately reproduced the early earth's atmosphere, then I apologize.

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

It seems to say that Miller-Urey made assumptions so they WOULD survive.

parados wrote:

It seems to say that Miller-Urey made assumptions so they WOULD survive.

I think that's a fair statement.

Do you agree that Miller and Urey were trying to put together a scenario in which amino acids would be produced and survive?

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

It seems to say that Miller-Urey made assumptions so they WOULD survive.

I think that's a fair statement.

Do you agree that Miller and Urey were trying to put together a scenario in which amino acids would be produced and survive?

I wouldn't argue that.

But.....

Then please explain the meaning of this statement.

Quote:

My point is that the very environment proposed as having produced them would be as likely to destroy them as well.

If your point is that the environment proposed would be as likely to destroy them then how could they have put together a scenario for them to survive?

Miller-Urey proposed that the early earth's environment was able to produce pre-life and , ultimately , life.

However, the 'atmosphere' they actually used was not likely the same as the atmosphere of early earth.

Had they used an atmosphere like that of early earth, the compounds they produced would have likely been short-lived, if they had been able to produce them at all.

Miller-Urey proposed that the early earth's environment was able to produce pre-life and , ultimately , life.

However, the 'atmosphere' they actually used was not likely the same as the atmosphere of early earth.

Had they used an atmosphere like that of early earth, the compounds they produced would have likely been short-lived, if they had been able to produce them at all.

username wrote:

.....And things don't just sit there in space, the way you seem to think. It's an extraordinarily hostile environment. Put you a thousand miles up without a spacesuit and you'd burst into billions of little bits, simply from intracellular pressure. Radiation, which permeates particularly near-stellar space is extraordinarily destructive too, as is absolute cold. Far more dangerous than virtually any planetary surface with an atmosphere. Yet all those complex organic chemicals are out there.

You apparently missed, or don't want to discuss my actual statement.

More stupid nonsense from Creationist.

http://wilsonsalmanac.blogspot.com/2007/04/peanut-butter-theory-disproves-natural.html

More stupid nonsense from Creationist.

http://wilsonsalmanac.blogspot.com/2007/04/peanut-butter-theory-disproves-natural.html

More stupid nonsense from Creationist.

http://wilsonsalmanac.blogspot.com/2007/04/peanut-butter-theory-disproves-natural.html

An abysmal chapter in the history of evolutionary thought involves the notion that certain races weren't quite as advanced as others. Consider the complete title of Darwin's famous book: "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" with the subtitle, "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". By this he meant human races as well as animal subspecies.
In the 1800's the scientific community believed that Negroes were lower on the evolutionary chain that Caucasians. Not only were Darwin and Thomas Huxley racists, but virtually all the leading evolutionists and anthropologists - Osborn, Hooton, Hrdlicka, and Haeckel. (Morris 1989, 61, 63) Consider this quote:

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient that the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the body characters, such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo Sapiens." (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human Races", Natural History Jan/Feb 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980):129) (Morris, 1989, 62)
H. F. Osborn was the most prominent American anthropologist of the first half of the twentieth century and director of the American Museum of National History. These remarks were not based on innate prejudice, but on the evolutionary science of the day. (Morris, 1989, 62)

In the late 1800's and early 1900's many in the scientific community viewed non-Caucasian races as evolutionary ancestors, human subspecies, and/or not quite human. As a result of this thinking humans of certain races were treated as laboratory specimens.The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races and it appears that 10,000 Australian Aborigines were shipped to the British museum in an attempt to determine if they were the "missing link".

Some of the leading evolutionists of the day, including anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith and Charles Darwin himself wanted samples. Museums were not only interested in bones, but of fresh samples and pickled Aboriginal brains, and good prices were being offered. Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes:

"A death bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland, in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen".

Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894) published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as "Australian animals". It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed "specimens". He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply.

Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. "Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens."

"A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas."

The above quotes and paraphrases are from (Creation ex nihilo, Vol 14, No. 2, March - May 1992, pg. 17).

This perverse tale of human debauchery can only be regarded as another bad fruit of evolutionary thought.

In 1906 the crowds thronged the monkey house exhibit at the Bronx Zoo (New York Zoological Park). Here were man's "evolutionary ancestors" - monkeys, chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, an orangutan named Dohung and an African pygmy tribesman named Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was brought from the Belgian Congo in 1904 by noted African explorer Samuel Verner along with other pygmies and displayed in an exhibit in the 1904 St. Louis world's Fair. Ota Benga (or "Bi", which means "friend" in his language) was born in 1881, had a height of 4 ft. 11in. and weighted 103 lbs. Although he was referred to as a boy he had been married twice. His first wife had been captured by a hostile tribe and his second wife died by a snake bite.

After the St. Louis exhibit, Ota found himself at the Bronx Zoo which at that time was under the direction of Dr. William T. Hornaday, who was considered a bit eccentric. Hornaday believed animals had nearly human thoughts and personalities, and he could read the thoughts of zoo animals. He "apparently saw no difference between a wild beast and the little Black man" and insisted he was only offering an "intriguing exhibit". (Jerry Bergman, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No 1 Dec 1993-Feb 1994 p. 49, quoting Carl Sifakis, "Benga, Ota: The Zoo Man", in American Eccentrics, Facts on File, New York, 1984, p. 253)

The exhibit was immensely popular and controversial; the black community was outraged and some churchmen feared that it would convince people of Darwin's theory of evolution. Under threat of legal action, Hornaday had Ota Benga leave his cage and circulate around the zoo in a white suit, but he returned to the monkey house to sleep.

In time Ota Benga began to hate being the object of curiosity. "There were 40,000 visitors to the part on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the start attraction in the park - the wild man from Africa. They chased him about the grounds add day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him." (Creation Ex Nihilo, quoting Phillip V. Bradford and Harvey Blume, "Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo", St. Martins, 1992, p. 269, from the "New York Times" Sept. 18, 1906) At one point, he got hold of a knife and flourished it around the park, another time he produced a fracas after being denied a soda from the soda fountain. Finally, after fabricating a small bow and arrows and shooting at obnoxious park visitors he had to leave the park for good.

After his park experience, several institutions tried to help him. He was placed in Virginia Theological Seminary and College but quit school to work in a tobacco factory. According to Hornaday (who probably had evolutionary racist views) "he did not possess the power of learning" (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No. 1 Dec. 1993-Feb 1994, pp. 48-50).

Growing homesick, hostile, and despondent Ota Benga borrowed a revolver, and shot himself in the heart, ending his life in 1916.

Who cares whether Darwin was a racist or not. We're talking about evolution today, not racist ideas held by individuals over a hundred years ago.

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

More stupid nonsense from Creationist.

http://wilsonsalmanac.blogspot.com/2007/04/peanut-butter-theory-disproves-natural.html

More stupid nonsense from evolutionists.

from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hsneg.htm

Quote:

An abysmal chapter in the history of evolutionary thought involves the notion that certain races weren't quite as advanced as others. Consider the complete title of Darwin's famous book: "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" with the subtitle, "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". By this he meant human races as well as animal subspecies.
In the 1800's the scientific community believed that Negroes were lower on the evolutionary chain that Caucasians. Not only were Darwin and Thomas Huxley racists, but virtually all the leading evolutionists and anthropologists - Osborn, Hooton, Hrdlicka, and Haeckel. (Morris 1989, 61, 63) Consider this quote:

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient that the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the body characters, such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo Sapiens." (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human Races", Natural History Jan/Feb 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980):129) (Morris, 1989, 62)
H. F. Osborn was the most prominent American anthropologist of the first half of the twentieth century and director of the American Museum of National History. These remarks were not based on innate prejudice, but on the evolutionary science of the day. (Morris, 1989, 62)

and from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hsabor.htm

Quote:

In the late 1800's and early 1900's many in the scientific community viewed non-Caucasian races as evolutionary ancestors, human subspecies, and/or not quite human. As a result of this thinking humans of certain races were treated as laboratory specimens.The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races and it appears that 10,000 Australian Aborigines were shipped to the British museum in an attempt to determine if they were the "missing link".

Some of the leading evolutionists of the day, including anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith and Charles Darwin himself wanted samples. Museums were not only interested in bones, but of fresh samples and pickled Aboriginal brains, and good prices were being offered. Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes:

"A death bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland, in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen".

Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894) published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as "Australian animals". It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed "specimens". He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply.

Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. "Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens."

"A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas."

The above quotes and paraphrases are from (Creation ex nihilo, Vol 14, No. 2, March - May 1992, pg. 17).

This perverse tale of human debauchery can only be regarded as another bad fruit of evolutionary thought.

from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hsota.htm

Quote:

In 1906 the crowds thronged the monkey house exhibit at the Bronx Zoo (New York Zoological Park). Here were man's "evolutionary ancestors" - monkeys, chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, an orangutan named Dohung and an African pygmy tribesman named Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was brought from the Belgian Congo in 1904 by noted African explorer Samuel Verner along with other pygmies and displayed in an exhibit in the 1904 St. Louis world's Fair. Ota Benga (or "Bi", which means "friend" in his language) was born in 1881, had a height of 4 ft. 11in. and weighted 103 lbs. Although he was referred to as a boy he had been married twice. His first wife had been captured by a hostile tribe and his second wife died by a snake bite.

After the St. Louis exhibit, Ota found himself at the Bronx Zoo which at that time was under the direction of Dr. William T. Hornaday, who was considered a bit eccentric. Hornaday believed animals had nearly human thoughts and personalities, and he could read the thoughts of zoo animals. He "apparently saw no difference between a wild beast and the little Black man" and insisted he was only offering an "intriguing exhibit". (Jerry Bergman, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No 1 Dec 1993-Feb 1994 p. 49, quoting Carl Sifakis, "Benga, Ota: The Zoo Man", in American Eccentrics, Facts on File, New York, 1984, p. 253)

The exhibit was immensely popular and controversial; the black community was outraged and some churchmen feared that it would convince people of Darwin's theory of evolution. Under threat of legal action, Hornaday had Ota Benga leave his cage and circulate around the zoo in a white suit, but he returned to the monkey house to sleep.

In time Ota Benga began to hate being the object of curiosity. "There were 40,000 visitors to the part on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the start attraction in the park - the wild man from Africa. They chased him about the grounds add day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him." (Creation Ex Nihilo, quoting Phillip V. Bradford and Harvey Blume, "Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo", St. Martins, 1992, p. 269, from the "New York Times" Sept. 18, 1906) At one point, he got hold of a knife and flourished it around the park, another time he produced a fracas after being denied a soda from the soda fountain. Finally, after fabricating a small bow and arrows and shooting at obnoxious park visitors he had to leave the park for good.

After his park experience, several institutions tried to help him. He was placed in Virginia Theological Seminary and College but quit school to work in a tobacco factory. According to Hornaday (who probably had evolutionary racist views) "he did not possess the power of learning" (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No. 1 Dec. 1993-Feb 1994, pp. 48-50).

Growing homesick, hostile, and despondent Ota Benga borrowed a revolver, and shot himself in the heart, ending his life in 1916.

That came from a Creation Science webpage, so it's more Creationist garbage.