DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

No, there is NOT a scientific theory of abiogenesis.

In science, theories are an aggregatation of one or more hypotheses that have undergone repeated testing in attempts to prove them false and have been shown to be useful in further exploration.

There is nothing like that going on in the field of abiogenesis right now. There are people searching for answers, there are many ideas on directions in which to look. But, there is no tested hypothesis, let alone a theory.

And, Louis Pasteur certainly did NOT prove anything at all about abiogenesis.

 

Had I not dismissed this one as pointless...that is what I would have said, almost verbatim.

 

The entire scientific field of biology (from the point of first life to the present, in every country on earth) holds evolution as a fundamental. That's serious evidence. Anyone who could show that evolution is false would be instantly famous the world over.

Even folks like Ken Ham (the Noah's Ark guy) agree that there is no substitute for evolution.

 

You probably made the better choice in not answering, too!!

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Sub-Thought: Theory of Evolution Theory of abiogenesis

​

※→ et al,

Certainly, it is not meant to mean that a "rock" can be transfused into a life form. But at the moment, when we look at anything living, it is a composite structure of:

Main “Organic” Elements:

◈ Carbon,
◈ Hydrogen,
◈ Oxygen
◈ Nitrogen
​

Major Elements:

◈ Phosphorus, (Nitrogen Group)
◈ Sulfur, (Oxygen Group)
◈ Sodium, (Hydrogen Group)
◈ Chlorine, (Halogen Group)
◈ Potassium, (Hydrogen Group)
◈ Calcium, (Beryllium Group)
◈ Magnesium (Beryllium Group)​

Trace Elements are Essential:

◈ iron, (Tranistion Metal)
◈ iodine, (Halogen Group)
◈ manganese, (Tranistion Metal)
◈ molybdenum, (Tranistion Metal)
◈ selenium, (Oxygen Group)
◈ silicon, (Carbon Group)
◈ tin, (Carbon Group)
◈ vanadium, (Tranistion Metal)
◈ boron, (Semi-Metal)
◈ chromium, (Tranistion Metal)
◈ cobalt, (Tranistion Metal)
◈ copper (Tranistion Metal)
◈ fluorine (Halogen Group)
​

I see nothing strange here. There is no element here that is not created by stars. Even Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is made up of Adenine (A)•(C₅H₅N₅), Guanine (G)•(C₅H₅N₅O), Cytosine (C)•(C₅H₅N₅O), and Thymine (T)•(C₅H₆N₂O₂). These four Chemical Bases come together to form that famous double-helix we all learned as a child called "DNA." And each of those Base Pairs are made up of the Main Four Organic Elements (Carbon Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen). Nothing else. Just those four main "organic" elements. Now we know that given time, a

But nature has no constraint. Sure, it would take some time before a basic elementary microbe would be formed just through the random mixtures coming together. Well, we have enough time, theoretically, we have 4.5 Billion years. There is an interesting story: → Hominin DNA baffles experts •

We barely have the knowledge to ask the right questions today. The Asperger's geniuses of years gone by have demonstrated that science itself evolves. But remember the question is: how do C₅H₅N₅ come together with C₅H₅N₅O and C₅H₅N₅O and C₅H₆N₂O₂. The universe is absolutely rich with these Main “Organic” Elements and → we are working on a scale of time → billions of years long.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

In addition to the enormous amount of time I would point out the even more enormous amount of interaction taking place amongst the trillions of chemicals every single second.

 

Good post.

Plus, it's not limited to billions of years on Earth. We had no choice but to be in one of the places where it happened - not on some Earth-like planet where it DIDN'T happen.

 

WillReadmore:

You are in denial. Anyone who bothers to research Louis Pasteur and abiogenesis knows that he debunked the theory in 1859.

"In 1859, Louis Pasteur entered a contest sponsored by The French Academy of Sciences to examine the now hotly contested spontaneous generation [abiogenesis] controversy, the same year as the publication of The Origin of Species. In the contest, Pasteur decisively undermined the concept of spontaneous generation [abiogenesis]."​

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/01/darwin’s-framework-self-organization/#more-2371

Now, go ahead and keep denying that Pasteur DID NOT debunked abiogenesis theory. Stanley Miller also tried to to prove abiogenesis theory in the laboratory in in the 1950's and failed miserably.
https://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Alter2Ego

 

https://medium.atheistengineer.com/...-prove-abiogenesis-is-impossible-6df4437c0634

And....Miller created the building blocks of DNA out of basic gasses and chemicals in days while nature had millions of years and trillions of labs...hardly a failure.

The only failure here is one of research and imagination.

 

The general ordering of the fossil record from simple to advanced. If there was a global flood, then we'd see human fossils with the dinosaurs. Instead we only see humans on only the very newest layers, not below.

 

Pasteur was wrong (from Wiki):
Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin]
Louis Pasteur remarked, about a finding of his in 1864 which he considered definitive, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."[90][91] One alternative was that life's origins on Earth had come from somewhere else in the universe. Periodically resurrected (see Panspermia, above) Bernal said that this approach "is equivalent in the last resort to asserting the operation of metaphysical, spiritual entities... it turns on the argument of creation by design by a creator or demiurge."[92] Such a theory, Bernal said, was unscientific. A theory popular around the same time was that life was the result of an inner "life force", which in the late 19th century was championed by Henri Bergson.

The idea of evolution by natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin put an end to these metaphysical theologies. In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on 1 February 1871,[93] Darwin discussed the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." He had written to Hooker in 1863 stating that, "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." In On the Origin of Species, he had referred to life having been "created", by which he "really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process", but had soon regretted using the Old Testament term "creation".[94]

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Sub-Thought: Theory of Evolution Theory of abiogenesis
⁜→ WillReadmore, et al,

Well, this is a very different question. In fact, it leads to a whole new set of questions. But these are questions that the scientific community does not want to address because like several other things, it cannot be put to the rigors of the scientific method.

(COMMENT)

In fact, most of the scientific community looks down upon those few scientists that do look at that new body of questions.

◈ How to chemically bond the elements to produce A,C,T,G such that DNA begins to form a Creature?
◈ The SETI Program could easily be enhanced. But the scientific community would rather spend the research dollar on other projects.​

Some of the deeper questions revolve around the probability of there being some other set of Chemical Compounds (A-G-C-T) which all come from Hydrogen (H), (the most common element in the universe) and three elements that exchange gases with the Earth atmosphere. When I was in school, we said "CHON," to help remember that CNO have the same number of electron shells in their atoms. Hydrogen is the universal power source. The elements C,N,O, have successive Atomic Numbers (the number of protons in the nucleus of their respective atom), in this case, 6, 7, 8; and all three having the same period (the same number of electron shells).

Are the chemical compound of the helix driven by the elements the exchange gases in the atmosphere? Meaning if you change the atmosphere, do you change the Chemical Compounds from A-G-T-C to some other chemical composition? Thus an entirely different lifeform...

Another question is, can life be based on a triple or quadruple helix? Or does it have to be a double helix?

Most Respectfully,
R
Adenine (A)•(C₅H₅N₅),
Guanine (G)•(C₅H₅N₅O),
Cytosine (C)•(C₅H₅N₅O),
Thymine (T)•(C₅H₆N₂O₂)

 

I find it at least possible if not likely that something along these lines has occurred on Titan already, explaining the anomaly of the Hydrogen drop of at surface level and continuous methane production.

 

Diablo:

Wikipedia does not have much credibility. Anyone can go up there and post anything. So unless you can provide credible sources that support what is stated at Wikipedia, your above claim--colored in red--falls flat on its face.

Louis Pasteur proved by experiments that life can only result from pre-existing life. That was in 1859. To this day, nobody has been able to produce life from non-life.

Atheists insist there is no Jehovah who created life. Since Jehovah is ruled out, how did evolution's supposed common biological ancestor (from which everything else supposedly evolve) come to life from non-life by itself? Give me a credible response to that question.

Alter2Ego

 

tecoyah:

Miller failed to produce life. What he did was the following, as stated by PBS:

"In 1953, scientist Stanley Miller performed an experiment that may explain what occurred on primitive Earth billions of years ago. He sent an electrical charge through a flask of a chemical solution of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. This created organic compounds including amino acids."
https://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/meteorites/murchison/page5.html​

Not only did Miller fail to produce anything resembling life, instead, what he succeeded in doing was providing proof that it requires the intervention of an intelligent being (in this instance a human) to produce what Miller managed to produce.

Alter2Ego

 

In this case, WIKI has more credibility than you do as the data they present can be easily verified and your opinion cannot.

 

His experiment showed the ease with which the building blocks arose and the only thing beyond that would be the time and circumstances required.

 

tecoyah:

Wrong. If you had bothered to visit the weblink that I included with the quotation, you would have seen that it is difficult to produce even one amino acid. Not only that, Stanley Miller had to perform his experiments in a controlled laboratory environment. Even so, he failed to produce life from non-life.

What you refuse to accept is that Miller's experiments proved that it requires the intervention of an intelligent being to produce even what he produced. Miller had to intervene and guide the outcome. That's the point you are failing to grasp.

QUESTION #1 TO TECOYAH: Since it required the intervention of an intelligent being (Stanley Miller) to produce a few amino acids in the laboratory, why would it not all the more so require the intervention of an intelligent being aka JEHOVAH to create life from non-life?

Alter2Ego

 

tecoyah:

I challenge you to use Wikipedia at any community college, when turning in a class research paper, and see if the instructor will accept them as a credible source. I can assure you they will not.

While we are on the topic of credibility, you claim I don't have much, despite the fact I have included weblinks from the sources where I got my quotations. If my credibility is lacking, as you claim, I wonder why you are even wasting my time with your usual nonsensical one-line responses.

At this point, you are only a few strokes away from being added to my Ignore List. I kid you not.

Alter2Ego.

 

I have studied and somewhat repeated the experiment, have a far more complete understanding of the dynamics and processes than you ever will and am not blinded by your religious fog....basically, you are completely outclassed and embarrassing yourself even if incapable of seeing it.

 

Neither chance or natural selection are creative forces.

Nothing increases in functional complexity by chance. Perhaps the most common observation made by human beings throughout the course of human history is that 'this did not happen by chance'. As makers of things, as creative beings, we recognize created things. People separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles, people who never even knew that the others even existed, all made the exact same observation - 'this did not happen by chance'.

"Natural Selection" is nothing more or less than extinction by degrees. "Natural Selection" is part in parcel of extinction not evolution.

Darwin's theory that some random mutations are favored over other random mutations by way of "natural selection" is absurd. Nothing increases decreases in entropy by chance.

 

I would never do so as there are far more comprehensive publications and I generally have access to source data. The sources you seem to prefer are cherry picked and biased.

 

Mutations = random but creative
Natural selection = selective but not creative
Natural selection + mutations = selective and creative

An example of mutations making something complex are bacteria that have evolved to digest nylon.

 

Tecoyah wasn't claiming Miller did or was trying to create life. The claim was that he found that the primitive earth made the building blocks of life.

 

bricklayer:

Exactly! That is what the scientific evidence says. Skeptics aka atheists claim otherwise, but they have never been able to present a single credible example of anything complex resulting by chance. They insist there is no Jehovah, but they have yet to provide a credible explanation of how even a single living cell could have resulted by chance. No scientists has been able to produce a single living cell from non-life.

Alter2Ego