Secondly glycine the most common amino acid living organisms use, has NO handedness.
Glycine is the only exception that I am aware of. If you listen to the entire discussion Gish speaks of this. It is also known that negative chemical reactions would destroy Glycine in a primordial earth conditions. Its viability depends on a steril controlled environment. What can we conclude about this experiment? That it took an intelligent agent to produce even the simplest amino acid called Glycine.
It definetely didn't solve the puzzle of Abiogenesis but it did show that from basic inorganic compounds you can end up with basic life molecules.That's very important.
The Miller experiment, I admit, had a now-known-incorrect composition. However EXPERIMENTS MODIFIED TO MORE-ACCURATE SYSTEMS yield at WORST the same results and at BEST better results.
It also used only a few weeks and an apparatus that took up less space than a closet to use a small amount of chemical compounds. As to even the low-side of 1000 years with a full ocean/atmosphere system to utilize and large quantities of the compounds.
Creationists make fools of themselves again by starting with the solution: "everything came from nothing when god created everything. anything else will be, has always been wrong. scientist work around the clock not out of curiosity and an urge to gain knowledge to help their fellow men, but for the sole purpose of disproving god. amen!" I wish I could laugh ... but it is too sad!
This video is an HORRIBLE source of information. I cannot believe you have a Ph.D. If you were my professor I would definitely K*cK Y**r a*s idiot. You should run that experiment, I think you didn't get it...
The experiment doesn't disprove God. Since God is not defined you could not disprove or prove what ever God could be, but no more then you could prove any other Deity created anything.
The experiment proves beyond any doubt that you can simply create amino acids with this technique.
It works no matter how tightly you close your eyes.
It's repeatable 100% by anyone, anywhere, no matter how much this guy tries to mislead you.
This chemistry does not work Gish is CORRECT..U have major problems..are u a biochemical chemist? Homochirality.stops u at STEP ONE!!..your amino acids must be separated right and left,which is impossible..Millers amino acids LACKED chirality,and were NOT usable..he created a Toxic tar..There is ZERO testable chemistry to back up some "primitive simple cell"..by chance in a test tube..or even worse on some primordial earth..u have faith in some imaginary atheist chemistry.that never happened
@GodKillerAtheist ?? What is it u didn't understand, u read it ..complain about my Grammar seems like u cant answer anything..another lost empty atheist moron..with imaginary atheist chemistry..
@5tonyvvvv I don't understand why a shit for brains fucktard who can't spell the word"YOU" thinks they're actually one uping me somehow when they speak like a cave man. I understand your propaganda just fine You failed to read my comment
"The experiment proves beyond any doubt that you can simply create amino acids with this technique"
You're another freak, crying that the science you use daily keeps PWNING your failed religious dogma. Don't even try to tell me anything if you can't even spell
@5tonyvvvv This same experiment has been redone thousands of times with the same results. They even did it at the college I attended and guess what? They produce amino acids. So you're point of atheist chemistry is just dumb. Plus, how do you get chemistry to lack belief in the claims of the religious because the religious refuse to provide any evidence to back their claims up? I'm not dumb, but sometimes idiots like you who make stupid comments astonish me. How can anyone be so retarded?
@GodKillerAtheist U fuckin moron the amino acids LACKED chirality!!!..u dont know what Homochirality is..those amino acids produced are TOXIC to LIFE..if i burned a piece of wood and said i have carbon..proof of evolution,,u dont know basic chemistry!!!
@5tonyvvvv and yet they are still amino acids chirality has nothing to do with anything but some fucktard propaganda. I doubt you even know what the word means. .
"those amino acids produced are TOXIC to LIFE"
oh they are? and yet they are amino acids, just as I stated but you failed to read. Many chemicals are TOXIC to life and yet life incorporates them just fine. you're not smart enough to realize any of that past your fucktard propaganda answers in Genesis failure.
@5tonyvvvv Fine deny chemistry deny science and believe in your magic Voodoo spells you fucktard God slave. You're brainwashed by your conceited apocalyptic world view. neither can you back up your statements but you can't even back up any claims of your child genital mutilator cult. Stick in your ass instead of your priests cock for once The TRUTH hurts huh? There is NO such thing as Atheist Chemistry and you are a brainless twat for even stating such a ignorant, fallacious, illiterate argument
@5tonyvvvv Go back on Answers in Failure, and ask them some real questions and see how many convoluted answers they can produce for simple phenomenon that is well-known and used daily by people who can spell, and think for themselves unlike yourself.
@GodKillerAtheist All amino acids in proteins are 'left-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'right-handed'.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!!!. Which is toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..
@GodKillerAtheist LOL..RNA has been copied using templates and bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying.. you..Please tell me the next step lets what you make next lets say you thousands of pairs of RNA..You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA,and amino acid molecules floating around is life?..LOL
@5tonyvvvv This is very simple First lets figure the chance for an all powerful God man thingy who existed outside of existing, that was just there and HE always knew everything and HE got bored one day and created everything out of nothing, verses.. The chance of a few chance molecules working by natural chemistry being able to reproduce themselves over a few billion years time frame of trial and error.
Secondly using Occam's razor I've got to say this is a no brainier.
@GodKillerAtheist Since I see you have no clue of chemistry and you have ZERO understanding of what Chirality is, I wont waste my time with empty lost atheists.
@5tonyvvvv Just wait a second. Your argument was that it was highly unlikely because the probability was too great. So you think an even less probable hypothesis is the answer. You're the one who's lost and spouting nonsense.
"the process might explain how a prebiotic world, with left- and right-handed molecules present in equal numbers, could turn into a living world where biomolecules favour one chiral form."-nature
Looks like Chirality is for evolution. But you will always deny it
@GodKillerAtheist Yes but he could only produce racemic amino acids. I challenge you to find any evidence that racemic amino acids can form complex proteins on there own. I think it is you who is being dishonest. Gish never denied, and fact says, (if you listen to video) that amino acids were produced. Again unfortunately they were racemic and complex proteins require left handed amino acids.
@benthemiester The point is that amino acids were formed THE END.
YOU have only been dishonest with your argument from ignorance. I don't care if the protein is ambidextrous. You're arguing that since something is unknown then it's evidence for your God and your book and your moral dogmas and your afterlife myth yatta yatta... But in reality it's only proof that we don't know yet.
If this flimsy argument is the best evidence you have for your cult then you really should reevaluate it.
The point is that amino acids were formed THE END.
Yes, inert non life or protein producing amino acids were formed. I challenge you to point out any thread that I mentioned an afterlife or "morals and dogmas" (which by the way is also a book on Freemasonry). I only mentioned God when comparing it to the belief in little green men.
Are you unable to separate science from your personel world views on religion? If so thats your schtick not mine.
@benthemiester Ya it is Next time try to hit the reply button when you fail to prove Jesus magic to me after restating your fallacy I've already pointed out about 3 times now.
@benthemiester you keep saying inert and non life but I doubt you can prove anything is alive. I can pick an atom off the ground and an atom that makes up you and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I think we can only say some whole thing is alive if it can reproduce. if a chemical cannot reproduce it is still a chemical. but a chemical that can reproduce cannot think it cannot act but if it survives it can only become more complex by evolution by natural selection. Zero magic used
@GodKillerAtheist Please tell me when I have tried to prove Jesus did anything, Are you on medication? I thought we were talking about science. Do you believe that the mere critique of an experiment is akin to someone trying to scientifically prove God did it. Why do you have to bring religion into a scientific discussion. I thought neo Darwinist were against these types of arguments.
@benthemiester "Are you unable to separate science from your personel world views on religion?"
You are only leaving one option open and that option is more unlikely and improbable than what science offers.
First off my personal world view that doesn't follow your immoral dogma is less harmful than your apocalyptic world view. Secondly you are the one unable to separate your dogma from reality. Seriously this Left handed Protein claim you have been going on about was DEBUNKED in 1982!!!
@GodKillerAtheist "I can pick an atom off the ground and an atom that makes up you and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference" Yes this is true. There is no difference between the atoms of rocks, a dead person or a living person. (See Schrödinger's cat) but I can tell you how you can tell the difference on the molecular level. The live person is the one with the beating heart. You angry GodkillerAtheist you.
@GodKillerAtheist cont..... Are you afraid of people critiquing an experiment? Isn't this how science grows? You seem to be more hung up on anti religious dogma and your threads are full of it.
Science offers no empirical confirmation of abiogenesis. It has never been replicated or observed. If you believe in it, you have much more faith than I. This is your world view. I am not using the dogmas or standards of faith, but standards of empirical science.
@GodKillerAtheist cont..."You are only leaving one option open and that option is more unlikely and improbable than what science offers."
Is this the Darwin of the gaps argument. I cant figure out how it couldn't have happened this way, so the only alternative is the flying spaghetti monster did it? This assumption is based on your own ignorance and limited thinking.
@GodKillerAtheist cont....You keep saying that I mentioned dogmas and an apocalyptic world view? Please tell me when I said this. Again are you hallucinating on medication?The left handed claim is in the science literature. Jack Szostac has lectured on this subject many times. In fact, scientist are now looking to asteroids or comets via the old pan spermia hypothesis to try to explain this well known mystery. I can cite the literature if you like.
@benthemiester So if you're not here to debase science with old debunked creationist arguments then why do you keep on with this failed creationist argument? Obviously you're lying if you say your agenda doesn't involve religion.
BTW look this video with Jack Szostac They do talk about pan spermia because it's a more viable option than a Voodoo magic God-lie. Listen to him prove you wrong. watch?v=kNwposv_Jns
@benthemiester I actually thought you were arguing for evolution for a second because this is evidence for natural selection.
"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)"
Let me show you more detail on work this hypothesis you have cited is based on.
"Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle"
These replicators were designed specifically for this purpose, and by intelligent agents.
@benthemiester I love how you quote mined that entire article and forgot the end portion and just wrote in your little replicators were desinged specifically / by intelligent agents. Here it is.
"These results support the idea that self-replicating polypeptides could have played a key role in the origin of homochirality on Earth"
This is a simple chemical reaction that you find too complex and I agree it is very complex but this is what billions of years of evolution have produced.
The Pan Spermia and possible alien hypothesis was proposed by the neo Darwinist & co discoverer of the DNA molecule Francis Crick, not me. The citation you provided is dated. More and more are looking at asteroids to solve this puzzel which is another part of pan spermia. Unfortunately the close to racemic mixtures they do find are still unusable for protein formation. Even if it was only a 1% to 99% D form, life could not happen,
@benthemiester The article was less dated than your creationist argument for ignorance fallacy you've restated about 10 times.
The problem is that life did happen. The idea of Aliens from other universes creating life on earth is a billion billions to the ten billionth power more plausible than some more complex and more unlikely God-lie thingy doing it.
So maybe asteroids contained the proper elements for chemical evolution Thats a more sound argument than voodoo-Jesus magic
@benthemiester 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
@GodKillerAtheist I have already adressed the problem with asteroids in other thread. It also just takes the same problems with the chemistry of life and transferes those same problems to another part of space.
So there you have it. Your willing to believe in little green men from outer space. Did they also use magic unicorns or leprechauns to create life? I know. They zapped the planet with the life ray. Maybe your a closet case Scientologist who believes is Xeno. May the force be with you.
@benthemiester Well I haven't seen this mysterious other thread you posted on so you didn't prove anything to me.
I never said I was willing to believe in little green men. I said that it's a far more plausible hypothesis than your incorporeal being chanting magic words to make life. The way I see it even if the chances for chemical evolution were 1 in 20 billion to the 20 billionth power, that's far more plausible than the zero evidence supporting your God thingys magic spell powers.
@GodKillerAtheist "the way I see it even if the chances for chemical evolution were 1 in 20 billion to the 20 billionth power, that's far more plausible than the zero evidence supporting your God thingys magic spell powers"
I think the problem is the way you see it, is just as bad as your math. There are only 10 to the 70th number of atoms in the universe. Your number far exceeds the time span of the universe itself. This is not the logic of a mathematician, but of a fool.
@benthemiester "Your number far exceeds the time span of the universe itself"
And still it is far more probable than the voodoo Jesus magic you claim created life.
"This is not the logic of a mathematician, but of a fool."
Yep you can't produce any evidence to a theory that has all the evidence, and you are still foolishly claim it's wrong. OPEN YOUR EYES. I doubt you can see through your childish haze of hatred towards people you failed to convince with your bad creationist arguments.
"First off my personal world view that doesn't follow your immoral dogma is less harmful than your apocalyptic world view. Secondly you are the one unable to separate your dogma from reality. Seriously this Left handed Protein claim you have been going on about was DEBUNKED in 1982"............
@GodKillerAtheist "I don't care if the protein is ambidextrous" I think you mean homochiral or left handed, and I was speaking of amino acids needed to form proteins. Ambidextrous referes to people who can use both hands equally well, e.g writing, guitar, painting etc.
@benthemiester NO that's not what I mean, I really meant ambidextrous and I really don't care about the stupid protein because you're fallacy doesn't prove your religion. Seriously I think the point went clear over your head.
If you want to prove your religion to me find one indeterministic thing in our universe. Magic doesn't happen!
Like I stated the Miller experiment proved that amino acids could be formed. Why do you need to debase science?
@GodKillerAtheist I never denied that Miller produced inert amino acids. What are you talking about? Please tell me how I am debasing science. Miller himself admitted that these amino acids were racemic and remained inert.
"I really don't care about the stupid protein"
Now who is the one ignoring science? I think the statement above says it all.
@benthemiester I'm done with your fallacy whether you acknowledge it or not. God doesn't exist because of something unknown.
Secondly glycine the most common amino acid living organisms use, has NO handedness. There is a myriad of reasons that the handedness would change. I could literally list pages of them here if I actually thought you would read them. You would rather produce fallacies and stupidly, rudely ignore the contents of my comments. I guess that's what your religion is all about.
@GodKillerAtheist No, you quote mined the paragraph and I merely referenced the work it was based on to let you know these replicators were designed specifically by human agents. I understood your first thread, and mine was a response to yours. Its very simple. If you understood cause and effect science you would have got the point. The premise of your argument is to attach to key words like maybe, or might have, would have could have. That really doesn't work anymore, and its old and tired.
@GodKillerAtheist Homochirality destroys abiogenesis! naturalistic origins are chemically and mathematically impossible! All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'.Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!!
oh and a quote from an educated evolutionist talking about this matter said that even in all the right curcumstances creating a fully living thing would be 10 to the two billionth power. now by the LAW of statistics anything 10 to the 50 power is mathmattically not going to happen EVER! so out goes that markgg1 no offence but if you can just ignore what we can see all around us and the laws that ARE observable than it is PURE ignorance.
Ten to the two billionth power, and yet the same experiment is a 100% repeatable part of nature that takes up less space then my toilet!
And to think the ocean was once filled with the same chemicals. IMPOSSIBLE NO one could count to ten to the two billionth power, EVER its too big! Idiot!!
the miller experiment is totally false. all he did was make amino acids with chemicals that wasnt around at the time. and even if it was true what would he prove? all he would prove if he had made a living cell is that life can be made through intelligent design! end of story. its a pretty cool experiment but it does nothing more than hurt the evolutionary theory.
Noone suggested he created life.. the point is, he showed that is it plausable that nucleotides, glucose, and amino acids (things that make life) are created by very basic molecules.
This moron makes me want to get a gun come to america and shoot him.
The ocean??? what is he talking about. What about volcanic pools, or springs, small ponds etc....
I do hope anyone with a brain can see how flawed this
NO ENERGY?!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING SUN ARRRRRRR
I like contraversal videos like this because it makes u question their ideas and or scientists ideas. He is correct in what he says in some parts, that the origin of life at a chemical level cannot be proven by this experiment however alot of his arguements are flawed. Unfortunatly there is only theoretical evidence for a chemical origin of life... and although its not greatly held, theres more and more evidence to suggest Panspermia... who knows! But lets face it, its not God. :D x
"theres more and more evidence to suggest Panspermia"
Doesn't that just transfer the problem of chemical evolution/abiogenesis to another part of the universe? And did you know that one part of the pan sperm hypothesis suggest that not only could life have been seeded by comets but by ET's also..... No God, but little green men are OK. Very interesting concept.
"But lets face it, its not God"
Is this a personal belief or can you provide empirical evidence for this statment?
@HannahMarie1507 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@HannahMarie1507 All scientists do today is copy and borrow information from pre existing living sources in controlled laboratory conditions and use templates and gene synthesizing machines!! You cant create life from just molecules!
The lecturer is Dr. Gish. This is what scientist John Cole says of Gish's book on evolution: "it is daunting to try to review a book which is rife with error and misunderstanding on every page."[21] "Gish misconstrues statements by Gould, Simpson, Stanley, Raup, and many others - even though by the time this 'new' edition was published he had been corrected in person and in print, so ignorance is no excuse (if it ever was)."[22]
check the web for further proof - the 'professor' is a fraud
Are you all scientists to make such stupid statements? Another hoax revealed, like the many that are produced & debunked to make claims of evolution. This guy did this experiment under false pretenses.
DNA is actually a simple molecule formed from just 4 amino acids bonded into repeating units called nucleotides and the majority of human DNA is "junk" DNA. The real kicker is all complex life arises from this " simple " molecule. Like it or not...life did evolve and was not created. It took nearly 4 billion years...which is another good example of why the God Theory of creation is rubbish. Why wait 4 billion years to create life and when you do create life why create a bunch of dinasoars.
If each piece of this "simple molecule was the size of a marble (1/2") when stretched out it would encircle the globe.
3,500,000,000 x 1/2" = 1,750,000,000 inches = 145,833,333.3 feet = 27,619 miles. The next time you take a long road trip or fly to Europe then look out the window and picture all of the little segments whizzing by and how they have to be in order to work properly. I think saying that this masterpiece is simple may be a bit of an oversimplification.
I am talking about the chemical structure of DNA...which again is a very simple molecule. Just because it has a lengthy linear characteristic...does not increase the complexity of the DNA...since all it is 4 nucleotides repeating. The significant complexity of DNA comes into play when you start talking about its "function" not its structure.
The comment he said on the chemicals being destroyed in the ocean is irrelevant because researchers recently created the same exact amino acids from scratch inside of ice! It is therefore sensible to say these chemicals formed at the poles. If anyone wants the link to the article that explains this I can give it to them.
How do the amino acids combine to form correctly folded proteins in the absence of a chaparone and how did the amino acids first seperate themselves into only left handed versions which all life is based? Also, how do amino acids and nucleotide molecules combine to form dna when they do not combine at any temperature unless there is a proper mechanism already in place. I know that these are tough questions so take your time.
Sources please for your claims? (Secular ones of course, from a non biased source, that includes any creationist website, as they are known to derive their facts from misinformation/preconcpetions/or other creationist websites/propaganda and in some cases even blatantly lie).
The odds are absolutely tiny.... so small the number is beyond human imagination.
This does not invalidate the theory at all, as the universe is quite a large place, and quite old.
The event only needed to occur ONCE! and based on the fact all life shares the same genetic code, and is composed of 20 amino acids.. we can safely assume it has happened at least once.
1. The man who speaks in this video has no idea what probability is.
2. No matter how small, probability is crutial. Just as there is a small probability of forming the amino acids, there is even smaller one of forming more complex life from them, but it IS NOT ZERO.
similar example: there is not enough energy for the hydrogen atoms in the sun to fuse and yet the sun shines. thats only because of quantum tunneling, yet another very improbable thing.
Zero, we are here. You see, this things are not hard to come about, they were bound to in the conditions of the early earth. Simple self replicating RNA has been produced in the lab many times without human intervention. Simply left alone the components will self assemble to do this in little time.
This is great stuff! you see, church, in it's attempt of sounding intelligent and on a par with science and discovery rely on debunking science by focusing on the flaws of the theories as opposed as trying to debunk or verify their scriptures. This is good for science however, as scientist might say "geez I never thought of that?" or "hmmm can that be true?" and then work on answers for the presented problem. This actually helps drive science forward!
yes I agree YET! scientist are trying to solve it, not just sitting on their asses pointing at a book they call holy and sexually abusing little children.
Sir, I respect your beliefs and everyone who follows the Bible does not sexually abuse kids, there are people who actually abide by its moral precepts. However, I am not trying to preach to you nor am I trying to convert you, I was just simply expressing an observation. Have a good day.
lol if you so follow the moral precepts then you should know that women are the source of all evil, that it's ok to commit mass murder in the name of god, that you shouldn't touch women when they are on their period (matter of fact, they have to be isolated according to the good book) it is also ok to send your daughter to be mass raped by and angry mob that wants to rape your guest instead of sarificing yourself to be raped. yes all that is in the bible I've read it.
I really don't know how you gathered all of that from the Bible and your thinking seems a bit twisted but your entitled to your opinions. I wish you the best.
noooo I'm not twisted. if an angry mob wants to rape my guest, I wouldn't send my daughter out, I would go out myself with a 2x4 with a nail attached to it and swing it wildly at them. (if small in numbers) if numbers too great, I'll let them ass rape me... in order to A: protect the guest and B: protect my daughter...
all of this is in the holy book, come on, pick it up and read it. I did, and thus realized the bullshit in it. also read about the genocides by moses :) I'm not twisted ;)
You seem to be upset about the good book. If you don't believe its true you have that choice just like people who believe it have their right and choice to do so. Thats the beauty of it the right to choose.
true, but just like christian believers want to push their beliefs into the government system and make everyone else live under what they believe are the moral laws, then I have a problem with that damn door stopper...
I don't think its christians who run the government on the contrary I think its secret societies that run the government. Kenedy was a christian and he got it in the head for trying to change the corruptions which existed in the government.
I don't mean that, i mean the pplz trying to shove the "intelligent design" parody. and the 10 commandments on the courthouse and a lot of that shit. I agree with you about the secret societies. watch zeitgeist, the one that's 13 episodes long, pretty interesting.
Well your absolutely right, a person should not be forced to believe in something that is enforced against their will no matter what the philosophy or concept.
There is one significant problem, and that is that the early atmosphere was not composed of methane, ammonia or hydrogen. The amounts of those gases was extremely minute. The significance of his experiment is almost zilch today. Only scientific curiosity.
snake what do you think the early atmosphere was? Thus far its thought that it was near entirely volcanic gas as there was no plants producing oxygen. Only minute quanities, as all of it would be in the form of co2 or in sufides.
First off O 3 is three part oxygen, right? You said that there was no oxygen in a reducing atmosphere of hydrogen. If it had taken place at the bottom of the ocean amino acids could not have formed into proteins which is the next level of complexity. Hydrolysis would have prevented amino acids from forming into proteins. Think about it.
terrell please reread my comment, i said there was no o3 not no oxygen. oxygen was just in short supply. Second, yes uv light does break up the molecules neccessary but thats assuming that wherever on earth this process had taken place was under direct UV light. There are thousands of places that this could have taken place. (not that we know the right one) but places like the subthermal vents in the bottom of the ocean would be protected (again not claiming this is the right place)
well either way this video was a straw man anyways. Millers experiment wasnt meant to "prove" the origin of life. it was just the start of the puzzle. It was only meant to see if many organic materials can be created in natural processes with inorganic molecules So yes the experiment was a success.
So, tell me if this was the start of the puzzle, what was the next step towards evolution. If there is no energy or little amino acid yield, what was the energy or enzymes to produce proteins? If you don't believe this evidence you are blinded by the evolutionary lie. Which science disproves evolution it doesn't have a leg to stand on sir. If you claim it does then provide me with some evidence and we can refute sir. I invite it.
No or little energy? what are you talking about there was constant UV bombardment (no 03 in a reducing atmosphere) lighting, the earth was still extremely warm and still cooling. That is plenty of energy, also scientists dont believe that dna was the first way of storing information, it is likely Rna which can also function to synthisis protiens negating the use of enzymes anyways. As for the rest what do you mean next step?
Thanks for your response, in answer to your first question, you implied that the production of amino acids was the start of the puzzle. Amino acids are made up of nitrogen, carboxyl groups, and side branches which identifies amino acids one from the other. There is increasing evidence that Earth's atmosphere was mostly oxygen. Amino acids could have not been produced under these conditions, they would have all been destroyed by oxidation.
terrell, there is a serious lacking of evidence of a high oxygen atmosphere in early earth, what are you talking about? heres a pretty good example. There are several valleys that are bright red (because they have a high iron content and they rust) The red goes extremely deep but in the very core which is samples from early earth they are still elemental iron, in other words the atmosphere wasnt high enough in oxygen to oxidize the rocks at that time
Ok, so what you are saying is that there was no oxygen in the primordial atmosphere? How did amino acids form? If Earth's atmosphere was hydrogen and other gases, there is no way that any molecular structures including amino acids form. Since you said that there was plenty of UV radiation everything molecular couldn't have survived. You simply have no argument sir.
afraid gabala is right because a) the definition of god contradicts itself and they still ignore it and say hes above logic, therefore cant be disproven. b) they are irrational, using reason (science) doesnt work with them
If evolution were true, how could it develop an incredibly comples system for turning genes on and of in a sort of dance, a highly specific, scheduled pattern, during the development of an embryo of complex organisms as simple as a butterfly?
"The definition of evolution IS a change in allele frequency."
Nope. Websters:
a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
Religions are bullshit. If a "God" ever existed, he created some weird bacteria 3500 milion years ago, and them they evolved into Animals, Vegetals, Shrooms, Protists and Humans. This would explain MANY THINGS.
Seriously, I have nothing against religious people, but stop beleiving into old falsified ROMANS, for your own mental-health. Stop listening to politicians too, but it's another story...
At first, my post was talking of Euglenia and miller experiment in details, but it wass too long (500+words)so I deleted it all and started over, thus was it has no sense as a reply to you.
I agree with you 100%.
Creacreationist is like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, funny story :D
There is a sandbar separating them, we know how sandbars form so why assume that ALL of the members of that particular 5 species were in that spot over the time itformed? A person could argue that the galapago islands were separate forever. The sandbar isnt permanant though and we know that so its hard to refute the fact that they changed over time
"A new morphological feature can appear through random mutation coupled with natural selection."
No. None have ever been observed, it has been verified with 50+ years of billions of genetics experiments that mutation does not cause permanent morphological change to any species.
There is no scientific evidence of Gods existence, so now you're completely in the realm of assumption. How hypocritical.
You've been shown morphoogical change and then proven that you refuse to look at the evidence.
It's understandable to be biased, but it's silly to be so obviously in denial. Just because you won't look at the facts doesn't mean they will go away.
"Where you deviate from the scientific definition of evolution is that you think it is something other than a change in allele frequency over time."
I do not differ on the definition of evolution. I did not define it. However, changes to the DNA are the result of mutation only. Changes to the alleles of DNA are the result of mutation. Mutation does not cause evolutionary change. 50+ years of billions of laboratory experiments have verified this conclusively.
First, I'll repeat that Euglena is a protist. It is NEITHER plant, nor animal.
Second, according to evolution, all living things have a common ancestor. By that rationale, evolution would predict that a creature with both plant and animal characteristics would have to exist, or have once existed.
omg...nephilim is a little kid. Its so obvious look at this " Why is mitosis a loss of information by passing on only half the genetic material from each parent?" he hasnt even finished gr 12 biology. How can he not konw this? ok every1 what is 1/2 plus 1/2? by the way mitosis is cell replication, you must have meant meiosis division of a cell to make 4 gamete cells with half the information
I evolved my frozen pizza when i added designer vegetables to it. The addition of bell peppers changed it into a new species of pizza.
if evolution were true, how could it design DNA with overlapping sequences in 3D? How could it cause new morphological features? How could it overcome the negativity od loss of information during mutation? Why is mitosis a loss of information by passing on only half the genetic material from each parent?
"Speciation has occurred numerous times under observed circumstances."
No such milticellularity has ever been observed to occur. Get a JSTOR password (try) and read the full articles.
"You're also not using the scientific definition for evolution. You are, once again, creating your own science."
Nonsence. Amatuer evos try to change the dinition of evolution to suite a specific argument. Wuote me a scientist who says evolution is not a blind process. Do try.
It shares features of plants and animals, but it is neither. Since you asked how it WOULD happen with evolution, I'll oblige.
Protists, plants, animals, and fungi are all "kinds" of eukaryotes. Which means they share a common ancestor. According to the theory, protists and plants would have separated from each other.
BTW, not all of the thousands of species of euglenids have chloroplasts.
"A species of plant and a species of animal both went from asexual to sexual while under observation."
Because man can create designer genes and insrt them into the DNA of an organisms does not constitute evolution. This is human genetic engineering. You need to read more than the 1st paragraph of the papers you Google to see what's going on. Can't? OH. You need a JSTOR password for that, right?
Find the entire paper. The preface is always misleading.
"Once again, you saw a picture of a whale foot with a hoof. The new feature is carried on by various humpbacks."
Oh dear. A whale with a deformity is not evolution. Humans are occasionally born with stumps for arms. This is not evolution either! Evos are so... stupid. They see a whale with a deformity and cry, "Look! Evolution in a blink of an eye!"
"Chlorella Vulgaris went through a major morphological change from single-cellular to multi-cellular in a highly predatory environment."
Sorry, but a symbiotic relationship formed between germline cells does not create a multicellular organisms. Multicellular organisms have multicellular biochemical systems, not simply sharing enzymes to more easily digest a nearby food source. What you describe is cells being attracted to each other's enzymes.
No, speciation would be the result of the mechanism for evolution. Mutation is claimed to be this mechanism for evolution since DNA was discovered in the 1950s. Many changes to DNA would be required to change an organism into a new species. Yet 50+ years of billions of laboratory results demonstrate that mutation does not cause permanent morphological change in any species. Evolution is dead in the water.
check out Shikano, et al. (1990) work on a bacteria that underwent a major morphological change when a popluation was put in a population of predators.
xD funny shet pls can some one tell me what he wanna show weth thes experement? E's for the wen!
DrPsychOOooOo 3 weeks ago
Secondly glycine the most common amino acid living organisms use, has NO handedness.
Glycine is the only exception that I am aware of. If you listen to the entire discussion Gish speaks of this. It is also known that negative chemical reactions would destroy Glycine in a primordial earth conditions. Its viability depends on a steril controlled environment. What can we conclude about this experiment? That it took an intelligent agent to produce even the simplest amino acid called Glycine.
benthemiester 9 months ago
It definetely didn't solve the puzzle of Abiogenesis but it did show that from basic inorganic compounds you can end up with basic life molecules.That's very important.
Stevoukos 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This experiment was a simulation and not an actual environment in which it wold make the amino acids.
Q-1 How many of these acids could be useful or even alive after Second Millers experiment in late 70's?
MrRufatus 1 year ago
This experiment was a simulation and not an actual environment in which it wold make the amino acids.
Q-1 How many of these acids could be useful or even alive after Second Millers experiment in late 70's?
MrRufatus 1 year ago
@MrRufatus
"How many of these acids could be useful or even alive"
Amino acids are building blocks, they are not alive.
obaeyens 1 year ago
The Miller experiment, I admit, had a now-known-incorrect composition. However EXPERIMENTS MODIFIED TO MORE-ACCURATE SYSTEMS yield at WORST the same results and at BEST better results.
It also used only a few weeks and an apparatus that took up less space than a closet to use a small amount of chemical compounds. As to even the low-side of 1000 years with a full ocean/atmosphere system to utilize and large quantities of the compounds.
onijester56 1 year ago
all miller did was create tar.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
Creationists make fools of themselves again by starting with the solution: "everything came from nothing when god created everything. anything else will be, has always been wrong. scientist work around the clock not out of curiosity and an urge to gain knowledge to help their fellow men, but for the sole purpose of disproving god. amen!" I wish I could laugh ... but it is too sad!
heyawhaw 1 year ago
Watching your other videos we can see you are very religious and you are trying to discredit the power of science. YOU ARE A SHAME FOR SCIENCE..
alextreme240 1 year ago
This video is an HORRIBLE source of information. I cannot believe you have a Ph.D. If you were my professor I would definitely K*cK Y**r a*s idiot. You should run that experiment, I think you didn't get it...
alextreme240 1 year ago
Comment removed
alextreme240 1 year ago
The experiment doesn't disprove God. Since God is not defined you could not disprove or prove what ever God could be, but no more then you could prove any other Deity created anything.
The experiment proves beyond any doubt that you can simply create amino acids with this technique.
It works no matter how tightly you close your eyes.
It's repeatable 100% by anyone, anywhere, no matter how much this guy tries to mislead you.
The speaker is being blatantly dishonest.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 7
This chemistry does not work Gish is CORRECT..U have major problems..are u a biochemical chemist? Homochirality.stops u at STEP ONE!!..your amino acids must be separated right and left,which is impossible..Millers amino acids LACKED chirality,and were NOT usable..he created a Toxic tar..There is ZERO testable chemistry to back up some "primitive simple cell"..by chance in a test tube..or even worse on some primordial earth..u have faith in some imaginary atheist chemistry.that never happened
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv And I should believe the baseless uneducated ramblings of someone whose grammar and spelling is lower than that of a cave man because?
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist ?? What is it u didn't understand, u read it ..complain about my Grammar seems like u cant answer anything..another lost empty atheist moron..with imaginary atheist chemistry..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv I don't understand why a shit for brains fucktard who can't spell the word"YOU" thinks they're actually one uping me somehow when they speak like a cave man. I understand your propaganda just fine You failed to read my comment
"The experiment proves beyond any doubt that you can simply create amino acids with this technique"
You're another freak, crying that the science you use daily keeps PWNING your failed religious dogma. Don't even try to tell me anything if you can't even spell
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv This same experiment has been redone thousands of times with the same results. They even did it at the college I attended and guess what? They produce amino acids. So you're point of atheist chemistry is just dumb. Plus, how do you get chemistry to lack belief in the claims of the religious because the religious refuse to provide any evidence to back their claims up? I'm not dumb, but sometimes idiots like you who make stupid comments astonish me. How can anyone be so retarded?
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist U fuckin moron the amino acids LACKED chirality!!!..u dont know what Homochirality is..those amino acids produced are TOXIC to LIFE..if i burned a piece of wood and said i have carbon..proof of evolution,,u dont know basic chemistry!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv and yet they are still amino acids chirality has nothing to do with anything but some fucktard propaganda. I doubt you even know what the word means. .
"those amino acids produced are TOXIC to LIFE"
oh they are? and yet they are amino acids, just as I stated but you failed to read. Many chemicals are TOXIC to life and yet life incorporates them just fine. you're not smart enough to realize any of that past your fucktard propaganda answers in Genesis failure.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist your atheist chemistry does not work u stubborn dumb fuck!!..its been proven wrong!!!..ok lets hear more assumptions..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Fine deny chemistry deny science and believe in your magic Voodoo spells you fucktard God slave. You're brainwashed by your conceited apocalyptic world view. neither can you back up your statements but you can't even back up any claims of your child genital mutilator cult. Stick in your ass instead of your priests cock for once The TRUTH hurts huh? There is NO such thing as Atheist Chemistry and you are a brainless twat for even stating such a ignorant, fallacious, illiterate argument
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Go back on Answers in Failure, and ask them some real questions and see how many convoluted answers they can produce for simple phenomenon that is well-known and used daily by people who can spell, and think for themselves unlike yourself.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist All amino acids in proteins are 'left-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'right-handed'.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!!!. Which is toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist LOL..RNA has been copied using templates and bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying.. you..Please tell me the next step lets what you make next lets say you thousands of pairs of RNA..You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA,and amino acid molecules floating around is life?..LOL
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv This is very simple First lets figure the chance for an all powerful God man thingy who existed outside of existing, that was just there and HE always knew everything and HE got bored one day and created everything out of nothing, verses.. The chance of a few chance molecules working by natural chemistry being able to reproduce themselves over a few billion years time frame of trial and error.
Secondly using Occam's razor I've got to say this is a no brainier.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Since I see you have no clue of chemistry and you have ZERO understanding of what Chirality is, I wont waste my time with empty lost atheists.
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Just wait a second. Your argument was that it was highly unlikely because the probability was too great. So you think an even less probable hypothesis is the answer. You're the one who's lost and spouting nonsense.
"the process might explain how a prebiotic world, with left- and right-handed molecules present in equal numbers, could turn into a living world where biomolecules favour one chiral form."-nature
Looks like Chirality is for evolution. But you will always deny it
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Yes but he could only produce racemic amino acids. I challenge you to find any evidence that racemic amino acids can form complex proteins on there own. I think it is you who is being dishonest. Gish never denied, and fact says, (if you listen to video) that amino acids were produced. Again unfortunately they were racemic and complex proteins require left handed amino acids.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester The point is that amino acids were formed THE END.
YOU have only been dishonest with your argument from ignorance. I don't care if the protein is ambidextrous. You're arguing that since something is unknown then it's evidence for your God and your book and your moral dogmas and your afterlife myth yatta yatta... But in reality it's only proof that we don't know yet.
If this flimsy argument is the best evidence you have for your cult then you really should reevaluate it.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist
The point is that amino acids were formed THE END.
Yes, inert non life or protein producing amino acids were formed. I challenge you to point out any thread that I mentioned an afterlife or "morals and dogmas" (which by the way is also a book on Freemasonry). I only mentioned God when comparing it to the belief in little green men.
Are you unable to separate science from your personel world views on religion? If so thats your schtick not mine.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Ya it is Next time try to hit the reply button when you fail to prove Jesus magic to me after restating your fallacy I've already pointed out about 3 times now.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@benthemiester you keep saying inert and non life but I doubt you can prove anything is alive. I can pick an atom off the ground and an atom that makes up you and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I think we can only say some whole thing is alive if it can reproduce. if a chemical cannot reproduce it is still a chemical. but a chemical that can reproduce cannot think it cannot act but if it survives it can only become more complex by evolution by natural selection. Zero magic used
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Please tell me when I have tried to prove Jesus did anything, Are you on medication? I thought we were talking about science. Do you believe that the mere critique of an experiment is akin to someone trying to scientifically prove God did it. Why do you have to bring religion into a scientific discussion. I thought neo Darwinist were against these types of arguments.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester "Are you unable to separate science from your personel world views on religion?"
You are only leaving one option open and that option is more unlikely and improbable than what science offers.
First off my personal world view that doesn't follow your immoral dogma is less harmful than your apocalyptic world view. Secondly you are the one unable to separate your dogma from reality. Seriously this Left handed Protein claim you have been going on about was DEBUNKED in 1982!!!
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist "I can pick an atom off the ground and an atom that makes up you and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference" Yes this is true. There is no difference between the atoms of rocks, a dead person or a living person. (See Schrödinger's cat) but I can tell you how you can tell the difference on the molecular level. The live person is the one with the beating heart. You angry GodkillerAtheist you.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist cont..... Are you afraid of people critiquing an experiment? Isn't this how science grows? You seem to be more hung up on anti religious dogma and your threads are full of it.
Science offers no empirical confirmation of abiogenesis. It has never been replicated or observed. If you believe in it, you have much more faith than I. This is your world view. I am not using the dogmas or standards of faith, but standards of empirical science.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist cont..."You are only leaving one option open and that option is more unlikely and improbable than what science offers."
Is this the Darwin of the gaps argument. I cant figure out how it couldn't have happened this way, so the only alternative is the flying spaghetti monster did it? This assumption is based on your own ignorance and limited thinking.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist cont....You keep saying that I mentioned dogmas and an apocalyptic world view? Please tell me when I said this. Again are you hallucinating on medication?The left handed claim is in the science literature. Jack Szostac has lectured on this subject many times. In fact, scientist are now looking to asteroids or comets via the old pan spermia hypothesis to try to explain this well known mystery. I can cite the literature if you like.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester So if you're not here to debase science with old debunked creationist arguments then why do you keep on with this failed creationist argument? Obviously you're lying if you say your agenda doesn't involve religion.
BTW look this video with Jack Szostac They do talk about pan spermia because it's a more viable option than a Voodoo magic God-lie. Listen to him prove you wrong. watch?v=kNwposv_Jns
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Obviously you're lying if you say your agenda doesn't involve religion"
You got me man. I'm really trying to bring in a theocratic government and make school prayer mandatory and you figured me out.
Your way to sharp for me man.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I actually thought you were arguing for evolution for a second because this is evidence for natural selection.
"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)"
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@benthemiester Do you have any better arguments. Oh I forgot you were not arguing for Gods but aliens?
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist
Let me show you more detail on work this hypothesis you have cited is based on.
"Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle"
These replicators were designed specifically for this purpose, and by intelligent agents.
Nature. 2001 Feb
A chiroselective peptide replicator.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I love how you quote mined that entire article and forgot the end portion and just wrote in your little replicators were desinged specifically / by intelligent agents. Here it is.
"These results support the idea that self-replicating polypeptides could have played a key role in the origin of homochirality on Earth"
This is a simple chemical reaction that you find too complex and I agree it is very complex but this is what billions of years of evolution have produced.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist
The Pan Spermia and possible alien hypothesis was proposed by the neo Darwinist & co discoverer of the DNA molecule Francis Crick, not me. The citation you provided is dated. More and more are looking at asteroids to solve this puzzel which is another part of pan spermia. Unfortunately the close to racemic mixtures they do find are still unusable for protein formation. Even if it was only a 1% to 99% D form, life could not happen,
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester The article was less dated than your creationist argument for ignorance fallacy you've restated about 10 times.
The problem is that life did happen. The idea of Aliens from other universes creating life on earth is a billion billions to the ten billionth power more plausible than some more complex and more unlikely God-lie thingy doing it.
So maybe asteroids contained the proper elements for chemical evolution Thats a more sound argument than voodoo-Jesus magic
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@benthemiester 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
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist I have already adressed the problem with asteroids in other thread. It also just takes the same problems with the chemistry of life and transferes those same problems to another part of space.
So there you have it. Your willing to believe in little green men from outer space. Did they also use magic unicorns or leprechauns to create life? I know. They zapped the planet with the life ray. Maybe your a closet case Scientologist who believes is Xeno. May the force be with you.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Well I haven't seen this mysterious other thread you posted on so you didn't prove anything to me.
I never said I was willing to believe in little green men. I said that it's a far more plausible hypothesis than your incorporeal being chanting magic words to make life. The way I see it even if the chances for chemical evolution were 1 in 20 billion to the 20 billionth power, that's far more plausible than the zero evidence supporting your God thingys magic spell powers.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist "the way I see it even if the chances for chemical evolution were 1 in 20 billion to the 20 billionth power, that's far more plausible than the zero evidence supporting your God thingys magic spell powers"
I think the problem is the way you see it, is just as bad as your math. There are only 10 to the 70th number of atoms in the universe. Your number far exceeds the time span of the universe itself. This is not the logic of a mathematician, but of a fool.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester "Your number far exceeds the time span of the universe itself"
And still it is far more probable than the voodoo Jesus magic you claim created life.
"This is not the logic of a mathematician, but of a fool."
Yep you can't produce any evidence to a theory that has all the evidence, and you are still foolishly claim it's wrong. OPEN YOUR EYES. I doubt you can see through your childish haze of hatred towards people you failed to convince with your bad creationist arguments.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist
"First off my personal world view that doesn't follow your immoral dogma is less harmful than your apocalyptic world view. Secondly you are the one unable to separate your dogma from reality. Seriously this Left handed Protein claim you have been going on about was DEBUNKED in 1982"............
benthemiester 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist "I don't care if the protein is ambidextrous" I think you mean homochiral or left handed, and I was speaking of amino acids needed to form proteins. Ambidextrous referes to people who can use both hands equally well, e.g writing, guitar, painting etc.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester NO that's not what I mean, I really meant ambidextrous and I really don't care about the stupid protein because you're fallacy doesn't prove your religion. Seriously I think the point went clear over your head.
If you want to prove your religion to me find one indeterministic thing in our universe. Magic doesn't happen!
Like I stated the Miller experiment proved that amino acids could be formed. Why do you need to debase science?
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist I never denied that Miller produced inert amino acids. What are you talking about? Please tell me how I am debasing science. Miller himself admitted that these amino acids were racemic and remained inert.
"I really don't care about the stupid protein"
Now who is the one ignoring science? I think the statement above says it all.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I'm done with your fallacy whether you acknowledge it or not. God doesn't exist because of something unknown.
Secondly glycine the most common amino acid living organisms use, has NO handedness. There is a myriad of reasons that the handedness would change. I could literally list pages of them here if I actually thought you would read them. You would rather produce fallacies and stupidly, rudely ignore the contents of my comments. I guess that's what your religion is all about.
GodKillerAtheist 9 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist No, you quote mined the paragraph and I merely referenced the work it was based on to let you know these replicators were designed specifically by human agents. I understood your first thread, and mine was a response to yours. Its very simple. If you understood cause and effect science you would have got the point. The premise of your argument is to attach to key words like maybe, or might have, would have could have. That really doesn't work anymore, and its old and tired.
benthemiester 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodKillerAtheist Homochirality destroys abiogenesis! naturalistic origins are chemically and mathematically impossible! All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'.Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
oh and a quote from an educated evolutionist talking about this matter said that even in all the right curcumstances creating a fully living thing would be 10 to the two billionth power. now by the LAW of statistics anything 10 to the 50 power is mathmattically not going to happen EVER! so out goes that markgg1 no offence but if you can just ignore what we can see all around us and the laws that ARE observable than it is PURE ignorance.
jacobmoeder17 2 years ago
Ten to the two billionth power, and yet the same experiment is a 100% repeatable part of nature that takes up less space then my toilet!
And to think the ocean was once filled with the same chemicals. IMPOSSIBLE NO one could count to ten to the two billionth power, EVER its too big! Idiot!!
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
the miller experiment is totally false. all he did was make amino acids with chemicals that wasnt around at the time. and even if it was true what would he prove? all he would prove if he had made a living cell is that life can be made through intelligent design! end of story. its a pretty cool experiment but it does nothing more than hurt the evolutionary theory.
jacobmoeder17 2 years ago
Why do you believe in god? Oh, btw, in the miller experiment, they used chemicals that were believed to be around in the primitive earth.
showbizjosh40 2 years ago
ALL his experiment was trying to do is make amino acids idiot!
Some advice
Try not to contradict yourself in the same sentence it makes you look like a absolute moron.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
What a fucking idiot
Noone suggested he created life.. the point is, he showed that is it plausable that nucleotides, glucose, and amino acids (things that make life) are created by very basic molecules.
This moron makes me want to get a gun come to america and shoot him.
The ocean??? what is he talking about. What about volcanic pools, or springs, small ponds etc....
I do hope anyone with a brain can see how flawed this
NO ENERGY?!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING SUN ARRRRRRR
markgg1 2 years ago
I like contraversal videos like this because it makes u question their ideas and or scientists ideas. He is correct in what he says in some parts, that the origin of life at a chemical level cannot be proven by this experiment however alot of his arguements are flawed. Unfortunatly there is only theoretical evidence for a chemical origin of life... and although its not greatly held, theres more and more evidence to suggest Panspermia... who knows! But lets face it, its not God. :D x
HannahMarie1507 2 years ago 5
No I dont like controversial videos like this, becuase the argumetns are completely syupid, unscientific and makes me want to poke my eyes out.
His arguments are so flawed, I do hope even a 6 year can see it.
markgg1 2 years ago
@HannahMarie1507 flawed xD your flawed hahaha
TheCanadamerican 1 year ago
@HannahMarie1507
"theres more and more evidence to suggest Panspermia"
Doesn't that just transfer the problem of chemical evolution/abiogenesis to another part of the universe? And did you know that one part of the pan sperm hypothesis suggest that not only could life have been seeded by comets but by ET's also..... No God, but little green men are OK. Very interesting concept.
"But lets face it, its not God"
Is this a personal belief or can you provide empirical evidence for this statment?
benthemiester 9 months ago
@HannahMarie1507 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
@HannahMarie1507 All scientists do today is copy and borrow information from pre existing living sources in controlled laboratory conditions and use templates and gene synthesizing machines!! You cant create life from just molecules!
5tonyvvvv 2 months ago
OMFG, this vid is so retarded
mortemdei 2 years ago
And last but not least you don't get information by adding energy. You get polymerized aminoacids, but that's all :)
Changer01 2 years ago
Amino asses! XD
Changer01 3 years ago
The lecturer is Dr. Gish. This is what scientist John Cole says of Gish's book on evolution: "it is daunting to try to review a book which is rife with error and misunderstanding on every page."[21] "Gish misconstrues statements by Gould, Simpson, Stanley, Raup, and many others - even though by the time this 'new' edition was published he had been corrected in person and in print, so ignorance is no excuse (if it ever was)."[22]
check the web for further proof - the 'professor' is a fraud
Sakartvelo69 3 years ago 2
You forgot to give any examples of mistakes that John Cole says that Dr. Gish supposedly made.
Just because John Cole says something, that does not make it so. Can you give any qualifiers for your post or should we just ignore it?
jakedevon 3 years ago
Are you all scientists to make such stupid statements? Another hoax revealed, like the many that are produced & debunked to make claims of evolution. This guy did this experiment under false pretenses.
lita623 3 years ago
DNA is actually a simple molecule formed from just 4 amino acids bonded into repeating units called nucleotides and the majority of human DNA is "junk" DNA. The real kicker is all complex life arises from this " simple " molecule. Like it or not...life did evolve and was not created. It took nearly 4 billion years...which is another good example of why the God Theory of creation is rubbish. Why wait 4 billion years to create life and when you do create life why create a bunch of dinasoars.
Nimbostratus1111 3 years ago
If each piece of this "simple molecule was the size of a marble (1/2") when stretched out it would encircle the globe.
3,500,000,000 x 1/2" = 1,750,000,000 inches = 145,833,333.3 feet = 27,619 miles. The next time you take a long road trip or fly to Europe then look out the window and picture all of the little segments whizzing by and how they have to be in order to work properly. I think saying that this masterpiece is simple may be a bit of an oversimplification.
skanicum 3 years ago
I am talking about the chemical structure of DNA...which again is a very simple molecule. Just because it has a lengthy linear characteristic...does not increase the complexity of the DNA...since all it is 4 nucleotides repeating. The significant complexity of DNA comes into play when you start talking about its "function" not its structure.
Nimbostratus1111 3 years ago
why write any comments on this video?
blankateeblank 3 years ago 2
Yeah only stupid write comments.
ArthBHx 3 years ago
The comment he said on the chemicals being destroyed in the ocean is irrelevant because researchers recently created the same exact amino acids from scratch inside of ice! It is therefore sensible to say these chemicals formed at the poles. If anyone wants the link to the article that explains this I can give it to them.
jp75457 3 years ago
How do the amino acids combine to form correctly folded proteins in the absence of a chaparone and how did the amino acids first seperate themselves into only left handed versions which all life is based? Also, how do amino acids and nucleotide molecules combine to form dna when they do not combine at any temperature unless there is a proper mechanism already in place. I know that these are tough questions so take your time.
skanicum 3 years ago
Sources please for your claims? (Secular ones of course, from a non biased source, that includes any creationist website, as they are known to derive their facts from misinformation/preconcpetions/or other creationist websites/propaganda and in some cases even blatantly lie).
Shalek 3 years ago
Answer my questions and I will be happy to provide sources.
skanicum 3 years ago
That's not how it works, I won't waste my time refuting lies, give me the sources and if they are true then I will refute them.
Shalek 3 years ago
The odds are absolutely tiny.... so small the number is beyond human imagination.
This does not invalidate the theory at all, as the universe is quite a large place, and quite old.
The event only needed to occur ONCE! and based on the fact all life shares the same genetic code, and is composed of 20 amino acids.. we can safely assume it has happened at least once.
markgg1 2 years ago
THIS COMMENT DOES NOT INVOLVE RELIGION:
1. The man who speaks in this video has no idea what probability is.
2. No matter how small, probability is crutial. Just as there is a small probability of forming the amino acids, there is even smaller one of forming more complex life from them, but it IS NOT ZERO.
similar example: there is not enough energy for the hydrogen atoms in the sun to fuse and yet the sun shines. thats only because of quantum tunneling, yet another very improbable thing.
palikrushev 3 years ago 2
What would you say that the probability is? Example: 1 in 1000?
skanicum 3 years ago
Actually instead of asking 'what were the odds for it to happen' you should ask 'what were the odds for it not to.'.
Shalek 3 years ago
Ok, what are the odds for it not to?
skanicum 3 years ago
Zero, we are here. You see, this things are not hard to come about, they were bound to in the conditions of the early earth. Simple self replicating RNA has been produced in the lab many times without human intervention. Simply left alone the components will self assemble to do this in little time.
Shalek 3 years ago 2
This is great stuff! you see, church, in it's attempt of sounding intelligent and on a par with science and discovery rely on debunking science by focusing on the flaws of the theories as opposed as trying to debunk or verify their scriptures. This is good for science however, as scientist might say "geez I never thought of that?" or "hmmm can that be true?" and then work on answers for the presented problem. This actually helps drive science forward!
Riggro 4 years ago
Science has not adequately explained how simple compounds formed into more complex compounds. The problem is that it is beyond man's comprehension.
Terrelleeno 3 years ago
yes I agree YET! scientist are trying to solve it, not just sitting on their asses pointing at a book they call holy and sexually abusing little children.
Riggro 3 years ago
Sir, I respect your beliefs and everyone who follows the Bible does not sexually abuse kids, there are people who actually abide by its moral precepts. However, I am not trying to preach to you nor am I trying to convert you, I was just simply expressing an observation. Have a good day.
Terrelleeno 3 years ago
lol if you so follow the moral precepts then you should know that women are the source of all evil, that it's ok to commit mass murder in the name of god, that you shouldn't touch women when they are on their period (matter of fact, they have to be isolated according to the good book) it is also ok to send your daughter to be mass raped by and angry mob that wants to rape your guest instead of sarificing yourself to be raped. yes all that is in the bible I've read it.
Riggro 3 years ago
I really don't know how you gathered all of that from the Bible and your thinking seems a bit twisted but your entitled to your opinions. I wish you the best.
Terrelleeno 3 years ago
noooo I'm not twisted. if an angry mob wants to rape my guest, I wouldn't send my daughter out, I would go out myself with a 2x4 with a nail attached to it and swing it wildly at them. (if small in numbers) if numbers too great, I'll let them ass rape me... in order to A: protect the guest and B: protect my daughter...
all of this is in the holy book, come on, pick it up and read it. I did, and thus realized the bullshit in it. also read about the genocides by moses :) I'm not twisted ;)
Riggro 3 years ago
You seem to be upset about the good book. If you don't believe its true you have that choice just like people who believe it have their right and choice to do so. Thats the beauty of it the right to choose.
Terrelleeno 3 years ago
true, but just like christian believers want to push their beliefs into the government system and make everyone else live under what they believe are the moral laws, then I have a problem with that damn door stopper...
Riggro 3 years ago
I don't think its christians who run the government on the contrary I think its secret societies that run the government. Kenedy was a christian and he got it in the head for trying to change the corruptions which existed in the government.
Terrelleeno 3 years ago
I don't mean that, i mean the pplz trying to shove the "intelligent design" parody. and the 10 commandments on the courthouse and a lot of that shit. I agree with you about the secret societies. watch zeitgeist, the one that's 13 episodes long, pretty interesting.
Riggro 3 years ago
Well your absolutely right, a person should not be forced to believe in something that is enforced against their will no matter what the philosophy or concept.
Terrelleeno 3 years ago
funny, but all priests dont abuse little children. still funny it ticks people off.
mtded 3 years ago
There is one significant problem, and that is that the early atmosphere was not composed of methane, ammonia or hydrogen. The amounts of those gases was extremely minute. The significance of his experiment is almost zilch today. Only scientific curiosity.
snakeman2048 4 years ago
snake what do you think the early atmosphere was? Thus far its thought that it was near entirely volcanic gas as there was no plants producing oxygen. Only minute quanities, as all of it would be in the form of co2 or in sufides.
boorens18 4 years ago
First off O 3 is three part oxygen, right? You said that there was no oxygen in a reducing atmosphere of hydrogen. If it had taken place at the bottom of the ocean amino acids could not have formed into proteins which is the next level of complexity. Hydrolysis would have prevented amino acids from forming into proteins. Think about it.
Terrelleeno 4 years ago
terrell please reread my comment, i said there was no o3 not no oxygen. oxygen was just in short supply. Second, yes uv light does break up the molecules neccessary but thats assuming that wherever on earth this process had taken place was under direct UV light. There are thousands of places that this could have taken place. (not that we know the right one) but places like the subthermal vents in the bottom of the ocean would be protected (again not claiming this is the right place)
boorens18 4 years ago
well either way this video was a straw man anyways. Millers experiment wasnt meant to "prove" the origin of life. it was just the start of the puzzle. It was only meant to see if many organic materials can be created in natural processes with inorganic molecules So yes the experiment was a success.
boorens18 4 years ago
So, tell me if this was the start of the puzzle, what was the next step towards evolution. If there is no energy or little amino acid yield, what was the energy or enzymes to produce proteins? If you don't believe this evidence you are blinded by the evolutionary lie. Which science disproves evolution it doesn't have a leg to stand on sir. If you claim it does then provide me with some evidence and we can refute sir. I invite it.
Terrelleeno 4 years ago
No or little energy? what are you talking about there was constant UV bombardment (no 03 in a reducing atmosphere) lighting, the earth was still extremely warm and still cooling. That is plenty of energy, also scientists dont believe that dna was the first way of storing information, it is likely Rna which can also function to synthisis protiens negating the use of enzymes anyways. As for the rest what do you mean next step?
boorens18 4 years ago
Thanks for your response, in answer to your first question, you implied that the production of amino acids was the start of the puzzle. Amino acids are made up of nitrogen, carboxyl groups, and side branches which identifies amino acids one from the other. There is increasing evidence that Earth's atmosphere was mostly oxygen. Amino acids could have not been produced under these conditions, they would have all been destroyed by oxidation.
Terrelleeno 4 years ago
this is refuted at talkorigins in the index to creationist claims under abiogenesis
partilov1 4 years ago
terrell, there is a serious lacking of evidence of a high oxygen atmosphere in early earth, what are you talking about? heres a pretty good example. There are several valleys that are bright red (because they have a high iron content and they rust) The red goes extremely deep but in the very core which is samples from early earth they are still elemental iron, in other words the atmosphere wasnt high enough in oxygen to oxidize the rocks at that time
boorens18 4 years ago
Ok, so what you are saying is that there was no oxygen in the primordial atmosphere? How did amino acids form? If Earth's atmosphere was hydrogen and other gases, there is no way that any molecular structures including amino acids form. Since you said that there was plenty of UV radiation everything molecular couldn't have survived. You simply have no argument sir.
Terrelleeno 4 years ago
No im not sayin you were saying that lol. Im just saying that the reason we cant use science to disprove god is...well you already read it
boorens18 4 years ago
afraid gabala is right because a) the definition of god contradicts itself and they still ignore it and say hes above logic, therefore cant be disproven. b) they are irrational, using reason (science) doesnt work with them
boorens18 4 years ago
Actually, that's not what I meant at all.
I was only pointing out that science doesn't comment on the supernatural in any way.
qabala 4 years ago
science will prove god is not what you think it is...
and your religions are total fabrications...
only1duk 4 years ago
I doubt science will ever determine anything, one way or the other, about God.
qabala 4 years ago
If evolution were true, how could it develop an incredibly comples system for turning genes on and of in a sort of dance, a highly specific, scheduled pattern, during the development of an embryo of complex organisms as simple as a butterfly?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Ahhh...
An appeal to ignorance fallacy.
How willfully unenlightened and unproductive!
qabala 4 years ago
"The definition of evolution IS a change in allele frequency."
Nope. Websters:
a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
NephilimFree 4 years ago
I don't recall Websters being a scientific organization.
If you want to debate the science, you MUST use the scientific definition.
qabala 4 years ago
"By that rationale, evolution would predict that a creature with both plant and animal characteristics would have to exist"
Yea but it's funny that we have only the Euglena. Byur then, evolution predicts a number of things that don't pan out. Heh.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"By that rationale, evolution would predict that a creature with both plant and animal characteristics would have to exist", OR HAVE ONCE EXISTED.
Quote-mining is so intrinsic to your nature you probably don't even realize you just did it again.
"Yea but it's funny that we have only the Euglena"
THE Euglena? Euglena is an GENUS composed of over a thousand species. How many would be enough? TWO thousand?
qabala 4 years ago
Religions are bullshit. If a "God" ever existed, he created some weird bacteria 3500 milion years ago, and them they evolved into Animals, Vegetals, Shrooms, Protists and Humans. This would explain MANY THINGS.
Seriously, I have nothing against religious people, but stop beleiving into old falsified ROMANS, for your own mental-health. Stop listening to politicians too, but it's another story...
FamilyGuy999 4 years ago
Did you neglect to read the post you're responding to?
If you had, you would have noticed I've been REFUTING creationist evidence.
Perhaps you meant to respond to NephilimFree.
qabala 4 years ago
Sorry, I meant to respond to you.
At first, my post was talking of Euglenia and miller experiment in details, but it wass too long (500+words)so I deleted it all and started over, thus was it has no sense as a reply to you.
I agree with you 100%.
Creacreationist is like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, funny story :D
FamilyGuy999 4 years ago
There is a sandbar separating them, we know how sandbars form so why assume that ALL of the members of that particular 5 species were in that spot over the time itformed? A person could argue that the galapago islands were separate forever. The sandbar isnt permanant though and we know that so its hard to refute the fact that they changed over time
boorens18 4 years ago
what about the cichlid fishes that were isolated 4000y/a by a sandbar and now have 5 completely distinct species from the parent stock.
boorens18 4 years ago
They may as well be finches on a group of islands.
qabala 4 years ago
"Evolution didn't design DNA"
Right. God did.
"A new morphological feature can appear through random mutation coupled with natural selection."
No. None have ever been observed, it has been verified with 50+ years of billions of genetics experiments that mutation does not cause permanent morphological change to any species.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
There is no scientific evidence of Gods existence, so now you're completely in the realm of assumption. How hypocritical.
You've been shown morphoogical change and then proven that you refuse to look at the evidence.
It's understandable to be biased, but it's silly to be so obviously in denial. Just because you won't look at the facts doesn't mean they will go away.
qabala 4 years ago
"Where you deviate from the scientific definition of evolution is that you think it is something other than a change in allele frequency over time."
I do not differ on the definition of evolution. I did not define it. However, changes to the DNA are the result of mutation only. Changes to the alleles of DNA are the result of mutation. Mutation does not cause evolutionary change. 50+ years of billions of laboratory experiments have verified this conclusively.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
You're saying evolution doesn't occur, but you admit allele frequencies do change.
The definition of evolution IS a change in allele frequency.
Care to contradict yourself some more?
qabala 4 years ago
"Protists, plants, animals, and fungi are all "kinds" of eukaryotes. Which means they share a common ancestor."
There is no potential ancestor for a euglena. It is part animal part plant. It is impossible for it to exist if evolution were true.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
First, I'll repeat that Euglena is a protist. It is NEITHER plant, nor animal.
Second, according to evolution, all living things have a common ancestor. By that rationale, evolution would predict that a creature with both plant and animal characteristics would have to exist, or have once existed.
Your position has no support whatsoever.
qabala 4 years ago
omg...nephilim is a little kid. Its so obvious look at this " Why is mitosis a loss of information by passing on only half the genetic material from each parent?" he hasnt even finished gr 12 biology. How can he not konw this? ok every1 what is 1/2 plus 1/2? by the way mitosis is cell replication, you must have meant meiosis division of a cell to make 4 gamete cells with half the information
boorens18 4 years ago
I evolved my frozen pizza when i added designer vegetables to it. The addition of bell peppers changed it into a new species of pizza.
if evolution were true, how could it design DNA with overlapping sequences in 3D? How could it cause new morphological features? How could it overcome the negativity od loss of information during mutation? Why is mitosis a loss of information by passing on only half the genetic material from each parent?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Evolution didn't design DNA. You expect it to because you don't use the scientific definition.
A new morphological feature can appear through random mutation coupled with natural selection.
The other questions are leading and based on strawman arguments.
qabala 4 years ago
"Speciation has occurred numerous times under observed circumstances."
No such milticellularity has ever been observed to occur. Get a JSTOR password (try) and read the full articles.
"You're also not using the scientific definition for evolution. You are, once again, creating your own science."
Nonsence. Amatuer evos try to change the dinition of evolution to suite a specific argument. Wuote me a scientist who says evolution is not a blind process. Do try.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Even I'm not saying it is a blind process. The only person here who has suggested it wasn't is you.
Where you deviate from the scientific definition of evolution is that you think it is something other than a change in allele frequency over time.
Quote me a scientist who defines evolution differently than "a change in allele frequency of a population over time".
qabala 4 years ago
Correction - "Even I'm not saying it ISN'T a blind process."
qabala 4 years ago
Correction - "Even I'm not saying it ISN'T a blind process."
qabala 4 years ago
How about an organisms that is both plant and animal? How would this happen with ebvolution? LMOA.
Euglena.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Euglena is a protist.
It shares features of plants and animals, but it is neither. Since you asked how it WOULD happen with evolution, I'll oblige.
Protists, plants, animals, and fungi are all "kinds" of eukaryotes. Which means they share a common ancestor. According to the theory, protists and plants would have separated from each other.
BTW, not all of the thousands of species of euglenids have chloroplasts.
qabala 4 years ago
"A species of plant and a species of animal both went from asexual to sexual while under observation."
Because man can create designer genes and insrt them into the DNA of an organisms does not constitute evolution. This is human genetic engineering. You need to read more than the 1st paragraph of the papers you Google to see what's going on. Can't? OH. You need a JSTOR password for that, right?
Find the entire paper. The preface is always misleading.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"Once again, you saw a picture of a whale foot with a hoof. The new feature is carried on by various humpbacks."
Oh dear. A whale with a deformity is not evolution. Humans are occasionally born with stumps for arms. This is not evolution either! Evos are so... stupid. They see a whale with a deformity and cry, "Look! Evolution in a blink of an eye!"
I evolved yesterday you know. I got a pimple.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
So you see a morphological change and dismiss it by moving the goalpost.
Where would the genetic info for a hoof come from?
Humans ARE occasionally born with stumps for arms, but NEVER with hooves.
qabala 4 years ago
"Chlorella Vulgaris went through a major morphological change from single-cellular to multi-cellular in a highly predatory environment."
Sorry, but a symbiotic relationship formed between germline cells does not create a multicellular organisms. Multicellular organisms have multicellular biochemical systems, not simply sharing enzymes to more easily digest a nearby food source. What you describe is cells being attracted to each other's enzymes.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Thank you for confirming exactly what I said you'd do.
Once again, you've made a refutation that shows you didn't bother to look at the evidence.
qabala 4 years ago
"Speciation is what evolution is based on."
No, speciation would be the result of the mechanism for evolution. Mutation is claimed to be this mechanism for evolution since DNA was discovered in the 1950s. Many changes to DNA would be required to change an organism into a new species. Yet 50+ years of billions of laboratory results demonstrate that mutation does not cause permanent morphological change in any species. Evolution is dead in the water.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Now you're double-talking.
Speciation has occurred numerous times under observed circumstances.
You're also not using the scientific definition for evolution. You are, once again, creating your own science.
qabala 4 years ago
Have you ever wondewred why you are cosistently wrong about all of the things you say about evolution?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
"...bacteria that underwent a major morphological change when a popluation was put in a population of predators."
1. Bacteria are germline. Change in the shape of their cells is not a change in morphology for germline organisms.
2. Unless a bacteria gains a new feature, such as cillia, flagellum, or an organelle where it had none, it has not changed morphologically.
This has never happened.
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Chlorella Vulgaris went through a major morphological change from single-cellular to multi-cellular in a highly predatory environment.
Once again, you saw a picture of a whale foot with a hoof. The new feature is carried on by various humpbacks.
A species of plant and a species of animal both went from asexual to sexual while under observation.
I can't wait to see another refutation from you that shows you haven't even looked at the evidence.
qabala 4 years ago
"So every speciation event on record qualifies by that definition (to which you regalarly fail to adhere)."
How is speciation evolution?
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Speciation is what evolution is based on.
Speciation is evolution according to the scientific definitions of each.
Of course creationists have different definitions of each.
qabala 4 years ago
check out Shikano, et al. (1990) work on a bacteria that underwent a major morphological change when a popluation was put in a population of predators.
boorens18 4 years ago
Now where is your evidence that random mutation is capable of changing living things morphologically from extant kinds into new kinds?
NephilimFree 4 years ago