Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[JoeB131]

No, abiogenesis is just make believe hypotheses for the atheists. There is no explanation of how it happens and you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.

If it was scientific, then someone would have pointed it out by now. We've gone around 9 pages with no scientific hypotesis, i.e. explanation. for it.

Actually, the Miller-Uray Experiment demonstrated how it would be possible for chemicals to combine to create organic compounds.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

Their results could change the way we imagine life arose on early Earth

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[james bond]

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way. The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe. The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists. Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare. If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.

Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?

Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?

Because the source does not really discuss fine tuning as the reason for no abiogenesis or alien life, not even a microbe. Instead, it just states Earth is fine tuned. You should've been able to deduce that life is rare and that we are it. To their credit, they do admit life is rare.

 

[james bond]

the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule

Abstract
Insights into the evolution of hemoglobins and their genes are an abundant source of ideas regarding hemoglobin function and regulation of globin gene expression. This article presents the multiple genes and gene families encoding human globins, summarizes major events in the evolution of the hemoglobin gene clusters, and discusses how these studies provide insights into regulation of globin genes. Although the genes in and around the α-like globin gene complex are relatively stable, the β-like globin gene clusters are more dynamic, showing evidence of transposition to a new locus and frequent lineage-specific expansions and deletions. The cis-regulatory modules controlling levels and timing of gene expression are a mix of conserved and lineage-specific DNA, perhaps reflecting evolutionary constraint on core regulatory functions shared broadly in mammals and adaptive fine-tuning in different orders of mammals.

What a cut and past job. Looks like card stacking.

 

[james bond]

No, abiogenesis is just make believe hypotheses for the atheists. There is no explanation of how it happens and you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.

If it was scientific, then someone would have pointed it out by now. We've gone around 9 pages with no scientific hypotesis, i.e. explanation. for it.

Actually, the Miller-Uray Experiment demonstrated how it would be possible for chemicals to combine to create organic compounds.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way. The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe. The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists. Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare. If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.

Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?

Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?

Because the source does not really discuss fine tuning as the reason for no abiogenesis or alien life, not even a microbe. Instead, it just states Earth is fine tuned. You should've been able to deduce that life is rare and that we are it. To their credit, they do admit life is rare.

"it just states Earth is fine tuned."

LOL. Yeah, the ultimate "source" (berkeley.edu) does mention both "fine" and "tuning". Simply Googling "earth is fine tuned berkeley" yields:

https://philosophy.berkeley.edu/courses/detail/1118

That's right, fucking philosophy. If you ever really want to go nuts, just ask a philosophy teacher to explain anything of practical use. This has apparently happened to poor James here. R.I.P.

"does this mean that science is ultimately based on faith?" "no prior knowledge of philosophy or science is required." Boy, you can say that again!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Is abiogenesis mostly considered fact by scientists, or is it merely a belief held by atheists due to lack of solid theories concerning the origin of life?

Conclusion:

“But Krister”, I hear you say, “it really sounds as if scientists assume that abiogenesis happened. Isn’t that unscientific?”

Well, what scientists don’t assume is that magic or gods were involved. That would be unscientific, and also unfalsifiable and untestable due to the alleged nature of the supernatural (i.e. beyond the natural world). Science does assume that there is a natural process behind everything. And that includes the origin of life.

What abiogenesis is about is trying to pry out how it could and can happen naturally from the clues that are left.

 

[JoeB131]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

Actually, it worked just fine... that amino acids can be created under the right chemical conditions.

But no problem, you Bible thumpers have your own theory.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein."

 

[Hollie]

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way. The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe. The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists. Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare. If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.

Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?

Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?

Because the source does not really discuss fine tuning as the reason for no abiogenesis or alien life, not even a microbe. Instead, it just states Earth is fine tuned. You should've been able to deduce that life is rare and that we are it. To their credit, they do admit life is rare.

Your source does not say the earth is “fine tuned”.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It puts the fine tuning in the Earth basket!

 

[Grumblenuts]

I know. I'm continuing to kid about it..
{The Silencing of the Lambs}

 

[LuckyDuck]

Veeeerrrrrrrryyyyy.......slowly,
Mainstream science has established that "evolution" is a FACT (no longer a theory).
What they don't fully understand is its mechanism and thus, how the mechanism works, is still considered a "theory."
What is silly, is believing that a deity whipped up a ball of mud and made a man from it, then ripped out a rib from him and made a woman.
Sillier still is a serpent talking to a woman in a perfect garden where all things, from the lowest insect to the T-Rex got along just fine.
Time to put away the fairy-tale book and join the 21st century. It won't hurt you a bit.

 

[alang1216]

the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule

Abstract
Insights into the evolution of hemoglobins and their genes are an abundant source of ideas regarding hemoglobin function and regulation of globin gene expression. This article presents the multiple genes and gene families encoding human globins, summarizes major events in the evolution of the hemoglobin gene clusters, and discusses how these studies provide insights into regulation of globin genes. Although the genes in and around the α-like globin gene complex are relatively stable, the β-like globin gene clusters are more dynamic, showing evidence of transposition to a new locus and frequent lineage-specific expansions and deletions. The cis-regulatory modules controlling levels and timing of gene expression are a mix of conserved and lineage-specific DNA, perhaps reflecting evolutionary constraint on core regulatory functions shared broadly in mammals and adaptive fine-tuning in different orders of mammals.

What a cut and past job. Looks like card stacking.

No idea why you think an answer posted in reaction to a question is biased. Please explain if you can.

 

[james bond]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

Actually, it worked just fine... that amino acids can be created under the right chemical conditions.

But no problem, you Bible thumpers have your own theory.

View attachment 415060

You are wrong as Urey-Miller has been relegated to history. Also, they didn't create proteins.

As for the rest, it's just trolling because your abiogenesis failed. The creation scientists have shown that amino acids cannot form protein outside of the cell so that falsifies abiogenesis.

"What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes."

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that...

www.icr.org

You've failed and lost again just like Urey-Miller.

 

[alang1216]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

A god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it. Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:

A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​

 

[james bond]

No idea why you think an answer posted in reaction to a question is biased. Please explain if you can.

Card stacking is a fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored. You just post a cut and paste which does nothing to address his point. Otherwise, please explain.

 

[james bond]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

A god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it. Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:

A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​

I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure. They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe. If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.

You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.

 

[alang1216]

No idea why you think an answer posted in reaction to a question is biased. Please explain if you can.

Card stacking is a fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored. You just post a cut and paste which does nothing to address his point. Otherwise, please explain.

Curious you didn't object to ChemEngineer in his post. I don't recall him providing any evidence that supports an opposing argument.

If I looked at your past posts would I find any instances of you "Card stacking"?

 

[Hollie]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

Actually, it worked just fine... that amino acids can be created under the right chemical conditions.

But no problem, you Bible thumpers have your own theory.

View attachment 415060

You are wrong as Urey-Miller has been relegated to history. Also, they didn't create proteins.

As for the rest, it's just trolling because your abiogenesis failed. The creation scientists have shown that amino acids cannot form protein outside of the cell so that falsifies abiogenesis.

"What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes."

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that...

www.icr.org

You've failed and lost again just like Urey-Miller.

Actually, quite a lot is known about chirality. First, it is understood that, of amino acids that form in space, the majority are left-handed. This may be due to the influence of polarized light or a function of beta decay, both conditions have been shown to influence chirality in the lab. The earliest amino acids on earth may have come from space, or they may have formed under the same influences noted above, or both.


Ultimately, we know with certainty that anything coming from a fundamentalist ministry sush as the ICR with be a product of charlatans who have endorsed a ''Statement of Faith'' that requires them to project a bias in favor of Christian dogma.

CB040: Left-handed amino acids

Claim CB040:
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
Response:

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
   
   
2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
   
   
3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
   
   
4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).