Hugo, I’m not going to get into the whole abiogenesis thing. I’ve spoken at length on it, you’ve read it, I’m done. However, the man who you say refutes Jonathan Wells uses slight of hand and outright lies.
The early earth atmosphere DOES NOT produce amino acids - period. They might have thought so in 1927 or even in 1998 but today they know otherwise.
Creating “Special Circumstances” in the lab is like having an intelligent designer at every step of the way and saying that we’ve proven RNA replication bla, bla, bla.
And that is not the point of the post in question. The point of the post is - If there is better evidence for macro evolution, why is it not given to our children? Why are they still using “evidence” now known to be false, unworkable, out of date?
The list of excuses that he gives are laughable, disingenuous and / or outright false.
Comment all you like. I’m not saying any more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sure no problem, you can drop abiogenesis, but I like discussing this topic so I won't.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why you prefer to not be educated on a specific subject, and I don't say that in a patronizing way, but it's just weird to read that you basically don't understand the issue, and admit it to a certain extent, yet claim to have nothing to talk about anymore.
So, just jump to PART 2 if you're not interested at all because it does not matter when discussing evolution...
******
PART1
******
The early earth atmosphere DOES NOT produce amino acids - period. They might have thought so in 1927 or even in 1998 but today they know otherwise.
Any scientific literature to support this claim?
1) In any case, you are wrong, read the table I provided in the other post, and read the references that come from scientific publications. The current accepted idea is that at least several of the experiment that were performed did create amino acids in an environment which is, according to current data, close to what the early atmosphere would look like.
2) But, even if it were not the case, even if we had no idea at all if it's possible or not for amino acids to have been created the way scientists tested it, it would not matter. The article states that there are other possible ways for amino acids to form or arrive on Earth. Again, all that is from scientific literature, not from biased opinions of a few.
3) I told you that several times in the past, but I need to repeat again apparently... in 2009:
"Jack Szostak received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on telomeres, conducted largely in the 1970’s and 80’s. For more than the past 20 years he has been involved in studies of the origins of life." (Source) Was the conclusion of his team that 'life cannot possibly arise from non-life' ? NO.
Creating “Special Circumstances” in the lab is like having an intelligent designer at every step of the way and saying that we’ve proven RNA replication bla, bla, bla.
Since when does creating certain circumstances in a lab mean that an intelligent designer has to be involve in the process replicated!?
Seriously, try to think about the implications of what you say for a minute. Just take a very simple example to see if you're logic applies...
What if I put water in a jar, heat it to exactly 100 degrees, and then wait. What happens?
Are you telling me that because I, an intelligent human being, setup this condition, it could not happen naturally? Of course the case of amino acids forming from non-organic material is more complex, but the Earth is also much more complex!
******
ReplyDeletePART2
******
And that is not the point of the post in question. The point of the post is - If there is better evidence for macro evolution, why is it not given to our children? Why are they still using “evidence” now known to be false, unworkable, out of date?
I agree! The point of the post is NOT about abiogenist in the first place, it is about evolution.
I disagree that they present evidence known to be false though. Any example?
(By the way, piltdown man is a known hoax and is not used for that reason obviously so you should drop that one...)
So, let's say we assume that an intelligent designer created the first life forms. What did he/she created? That is the problem with the intelligent design movement; they have no answer for that. Instead, they prefer to bash evolution and you fall for it, because you agree with their conclusion obviously.
Your claim, to be more precise, is that we have no evidence for macro evolution. This only shows that you do not understand, once again, what the terms mean. Macro evolution is often referred to as speciation, when two populations of a common ancestor species are not able to interbreed anymore.
This was observed, and we do have evidence of this process. Do you really need me to give you some in order to believe it? I would not know where to start honestly... there are just too many.
In any case, we can cut the chase and jump to the problem right away: Do humans share a common ancestor with other primates?
The answer is not open to debate, yet that's what you refuse to believe. Yes or no?
Oh and... did you ever visit a museum of natural history?