Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[ding]

True, today. I am talking about the pre life environment. Not disagreeing with you.

Agreeing that reproduction helped models dominate.

It sure seemed like you were disagreeing with me.

 

[ding]

Certainly the cells we see today were not the first life.

So pre-cells were life? What's that?

 

[alang1216]

I'm saying it took billions of years for long chains of organic molecules to fold itself in the correct sequence. That's not evolution. That's chance. That's statistics.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[progressive hunter]

Thanks for the grammar lesson but I'll stand behind what I wrote. You, on the other hand seem content to deflect review of what you wrote.


You assumed it is not and it can't without any basis of fact.

the burden of proof is in you,, but you knew that and have run out of excuses,,

 

[alang1216]

You missed his point, he was pointing to the complexity of one cell and how you need that for evolution however, then he says no one has created a single cell yet. There are 0 inorganic molecules that can create life on their own.

I got his point, I just think he is completely wrong.

 

[ding]

I'm not sure what you're saying.

I know. You only know long chains of organic molecules. That's it. That's as far as you have taken it.

 

[alang1216]

It's idiotic to even consider the first living thing is less than a single cell. Your self assembling molecule is not alive and is not evolving. It's not replicating itself. It's not dividing itself. It's not a programmed reproduction.

Your statements might almost make one believe you knew what you were talking about.

 

[alang1216]

What I am telling you is that evolution is for living things. Anything involving the folding of long chains of organic molecules is chance. It doesn't matter what the affinity is. There's no instructions, no information being passed down. If there were a natural affinity for organic molecules to self assemble into living cells, it should be easy to find.

What you're telling me is that you don't understand the science and, as usual, you put words in my mouth rather than listen to what I actually write.

 

[ding]

Your statements might almost make one believe you knew what you were talking about.

I surprise myself sometimes.

But seriously, we shouldn't even be arguing about this. The only plausible explanation is the dance floor was being built while the dance was going on. It can only be described as a spark of life.

It's as crazy as the improbable manner in which the universe popped into existence and the structure of matter being improbably tuned for chemical evolution.

 

[Leo123]

I got his point, I just think he is completely wrong.

Why do you think he is wrong? He's a microbiologist and knows the subject intimately. He has done gene splicing, etc. What better expert is there?

 

[ding]

What you're telling me is that you don't understand the science and, as usual, you put words in my mouth rather than listen to what I actually write.

I really think you would benefit from researching this yourself. Why should I have to argue with you about it?

Long chains of organic molecules can mimic amino acids.

Protein folding is the process by which a linear chain of amino acids, or polypeptide, folds into a three-dimensional structure, or "fold", that allows the protein to function biologically. The folding process is determined by the amino acid sequence, or primary structure, of the protein.

 

[Leo123]

I really think you would benefit from researching this yourself. Why should I have to argue with you about it?

Long chains of organic molecules can mimic amino acids.

Protein folding is the process by which a linear chain of amino acids, or polypeptide, folds into a three-dimensional structure, or "fold", that allows the protein to function biologically. The folding process is determined by the amino acid sequence, or primary structure, of the protein.

Good point and, beyond that, how does an amino acid know to do that?

 

[alang1216]

One cilia motor of many in one ecoli cell. Tell me that was an accident.

Not an accident, an example of evolution. As I recall there are similar, non-rotating structures and the loss of a single protein enables these structures to turn.

 

[ding]

Good point and, beyond that, how does an amino acid know to do that?

That I haven't an F'n clue. Mind boggling. I say it has to be intentional.

 

[alang1216]

I really think you would benefit from researching this yourself. Why should I have to argue with you about it?

Long chains of organic molecules can mimic amino acids.

Protein folding is the process by which a linear chain of amino acids, or polypeptide, folds into a three-dimensional structure, or "fold", that allows the protein to function biologically. The folding process is determined by the amino acid sequence, or primary structure, of the protein.

Interesting but not relevant to the definition of life. If you think the first life to be subject to evolution was the cell as we know it today, you are a creationist and can stop using science to explain the origin of life. Lean into it as you might say.

 

[Leo123]

Not an accident, an example of evolution. As I recall there are similar, non-rotating structures and the loss of a single protein enables these structures to turn.

And evolution is an example of intelligent design.

 

[ding]

Interesting but not relevant to the definition of life. If you think the first life to be subject to evolution was the cell as we know it today, you are a creationist and can stop using science to explain the origin of life. Lean into it as you might say.

First of all it's extremely relevant for chemical evolution leading to biological evolution. So don't try to minimize its importance. Secondly that's an idiotic argument. I haven't argued what the first cell looked like. I have argued that until it was capable of reproduction it wasn't a cell. Everything you have tried to argue what it was was idiotic.

 

[alang1216]

the burden of proof is in you,, but you knew that and have run out of excuses,,

You certainly like that word, 'proof'. You must be a mathematician because there is no such thing in the real world. If that is your standard, how can you believe anything?

 

[Leo123]

Interesting but not relevant to the definition of life. If you think the first life to be subject to evolution was the cell as we know it today, you are a creationist and can stop using science to explain the origin of life. Lean into it as you might say.

I never said the 'first life' was a cell. I know what it isn't and that is some random folding action in some primordial soup.

 

[alang1216]

And evolution is an example of intelligent design.

If there is a Creator, evolution is the best explanation of how He creates.