You keep saying "living matter" and "non-living matter", and I think that's a misleading direction to take. What exactly is "living matter" anyway? Is the sulfur in my body alive? Or the iron in my blood? Is iron in the ground dead?
What you should be saying is "organic" and "non-organic". Life is made up of organic compounds.
If abiogenesis could occur, it would have to form all Left handed amino acids, including the DNA and RNA as well as the little machines (which are made of proteins) to form the protiens as well as other functions. Since life is made from all Left handed amino acids, and scientists can not force amino acids to form only left handed, it is life to come about by chance. Only a powerful intelligence could be responsible for life and the Bible says God spoke and it was so.
@AndyG792 If abiogenesis could occur, it would have to form all Left handed amino acids, including the DNA and RNA as well as the little machines (which are made of proteins) to form the protiens as well as other functions. Since life is made from all Left handed amino acids, and scientists can not force amino acids to form only left handed, it is impossible for life to come about by chance. Only a powerful intelligence could be responsible for life and the Bible says God spoke and it was so.
As far as Abiogenesis is concerned, although there are various hypothises, they all do agree that it probably started chemically adapting from simple to more complex organisms.
Ok, I looked at some of the comments and went back to watch. Two more things. 1: The only things necessary for life to start are a way to multiply and a way to get more material. This is very important to understand. 2: Science doesn't say "This is how life started", only "This is how it could have started" and they give very sound evidence. Oh and creationists DO claim that they KNOW how life was created.
I watched your video until 1:33 mark. I had to stop because you are discussing a scientific theory and you don't even understand what the word theory means. It's not just some asshole saying something you know, and it's not just some guess. To put it in perspective for you I will name some theories; The earth revolves around the sun.... I don't even wat to go on, do some research and learn vocabulary befor you make a video.
@psychetruth "The current scientific models of abiogensis are actually simply attempts to explain how life could have come about with out the causation or intervention of any agent."
Wrong.
Current models are an attempt to uncover the natural agents, qualities, conditions and processes that can produce life by natural, mechanistic means.
Creationists impose their prejudice and pretend that the research really about disproving their unfalsifiable claims. That is disingenuous and arrogant.
Just as I thought Creationists and Atheists fighting and quarreling over something they both cannot explain properly. Time to think outside the box.....
@PhysiologicAli You do not have to know about abiogenesis.to be a Atheists it is no believe in a god/gods a lack of evidence ,Just because we do not understand how life came about dose not mean a god did it
That is a very valid point. I personally retain my faith in God for psychological and practical purposes because this gives you some sort of a "cushion" in day to day life. It might be a delusion as Dawkins put it but it works with so many believers around the world.Unlike Dawkins I do not think that all religious people are stupid it is not their fault that science has failed to provide adequate answers to the big questions. Lets see what happens next.
@PhysiologicAli I do not know what happens when we die I do not think anyone knows Sciences is not static it does move on opposed too religion which can not move on I defend your right to believe in what ever But the problem I have with religion is denying of the theory of evaluation and the piratical application which come from the theory I do not know of any religion that answers question to the meaning of life all life gods too so why?
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." ~ Isaac Asimov
Theory =! Hypothesis =! Conjecture
A fact is an observable phenomenon that can be described in terms of "laws". We explain how laws work as best (logically) we can in terms of a "theory" which can allow us to make reliable predictions. Anyone who thinks that "hypotheses" are breast fed into "theories" and if they're good grow up to become "laws", has no idea what science is.
In the early days before biochemistry life was 'assumed' to be made from distinctive elements. The discovery of the role of carbon dioxide in plants in the early 19th century changed that;life was how molecules are assembled not what its' made of. The later discovery of amino acids gave the base of all living organisms. Understanding respiration and photosynthesis gave us ideas of energy in life. Then science showed how nature makes amino acids from inorganic sources. 170 years of work.
I watched all three of your videos on Abiogenesis and I loved them. First of all you do a good job teaching about the scientific side, so I learned from you about the theory. Secondly, you are very honest about the probability of it happening, which is quite unlikely. Also that the proto cell is nothing but hypothetical, a scientist's wild assumption. So, thank you for that. I am quite glad to continue in the intelligent design theory. It makes sense, & so does the Biblical story of creation.
@RichardFriend48 This video is old and then guy is woefully misinformed.
For a more recent and far more thorough examination of the Abiogenesis hypthesis please research better quality resources.
We've been creating virus's in the laboratory for over 15 years now. Within the next 10 years we will most likely achieve true abiogenesis in the lab. What happens then? What will it take for people to discard ancient myths?
@JayJayAbels Do a search for a video on YouTube called: "Intelligent Design 4.7 Darwin to Intelligent Design".
Dean Kenyon who wrote the popular book called Biochemical Evolution in the 70s, talks about what was missing in his analysis, the origin of genetic information itself. How did life organize itself without genetic information? and his conclusion on it. Very interesting.
Also search for: "Dean Kenyon PhD Speaks Out Against Evolutionary Dogmatism"
@RichardFriend48 Yeah Dean... the author of "Of Pandas and People". The guy is a crock of shit bro. Intelligent Design has failed IN and OUT of court for decades now. It is NOT a scientific theory. It is NOT factual.
But it IS Creationism disguised behind a new, generic title. It's absolute bullshit.
The Theory of Evolution is a fact. Period. It happened whether you want it to or not. And it CONTINUES to happen.
Abiogenesis is another story though. Still far more fascinating than God Did It.
@JayJayAbels Your "faith" in evolution is very strong. Where Dean failed was in his "faith" in evolution & abiogenesis. But finally he saw through the lack of scientific evidence for both that it was impossible. He was humble enough to accept the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible, & that evolution gives no answer to the origin of genetic instructions.Genetic instructions that are clearly intelligent, so where did the intelligent information come from but from a super-intelligence?
@RichardFriend48 Smh. There are 500,000 scientists in this world. 99.5% of them take evolution to be true - regardless of their religious beliefs. (That's 497,500 scientists). Which leaves us with 2,500 scientists who don't believe that evolution is the best explanation to define the diversity of life on this planet.
Funny that you JUST HAPPEN to agree with the extreme minority.
But instead of appealing to authority or statistics - would ANY legitimate evidence change your mind?
@JayJayAbels When you have an educational system for the last 50 plus years that allows only one view to be taught, & the other view ridiculed, what you would expect is to have 95% of the students believing, without question, what they are taught. Only the 5% did the critical thinking on what they were taught, the tough questioning, & they rejected it. Actually the percentage is higher than 5%, because some scientists are closet creationists, knowing they would lose their jobs....
Science isn't about "views". It's about experimenting, researching, and observing. The fact that there are some people out there who don't like what the experimenting, researching, and observing produces because they think it conflicts with their particular religious belief is beside the point.
@dmnemaine But no one has observed Abiogenesis. Watch all 3 videos of Origin of Life -- Abiogenesis videos from this guy. He does a good job at explaining that naturalistic scienctists have come up with their own ideas (basically guesses, which really are no better than some myths) about how life began. Also, know that there are many scientists who don't like what the Bible says about creation, because it conflicts with the myths of evolution they have been taught in their science classes.
@RichardFriend48, Evolution is not a myth. It has been observed. There is a multitude of evidence that has been found supporting it. Besides, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Two completely different things. Back to abiogenesis. Evidence pointing to it has absolutely been observed. You are wrong.
@dmnemaine I found a good youtube video about why chemical evolution or abiogenesis could not have happended. It has to do with genentic instructions in the cell. Go to YouTube & do a search for "Dean Kenyon PhD Speaks Out Against Evolutionary Dogmatism". Dean Kenyon co-wrote the book on Biochemical Predestination back in the late 60's/early 70's and has changed his mind. He now says that "We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest of cells"
@boblafro "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance.
@boblafro You believe in magic then with out the magician..LOL..Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
@5tonyvvvv No it makes more sense and is far more logical to believe that a fully formed, extremely complex human being was zapped into existence from mud. And then his female friend was zapped into existence out of a male rib bone.
I don't understand how "atheists" can't see the simplicity in that? It's like... duh - of course god it!
It says so right there in the Bible!
Don't waste your time with these demonic child of Darwin! They probably plant more fossils every day.
@JayJayAbels "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance
@JayJayAbels Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
At some point there was no life. And now there is life. So, at some point, some abiogenetic event happened. Be aware that the first cells weren't as complex as they are today.
And you are confusing the scientific term, "theory," with the colloquially version of it. A scientific theory explains facts, so it isn't just an idea. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis as of now.
Don't think that something is "just a theory."
Look up cdk007's video on abiogenesis. It's the leading explanation.
you are assuming that all cells and life started as you see them today. Common mistake in most people. Maybe one day you will have the time to actually stop and learn these things. Good luck brother, maybe one day ill see a vid from you that makes sense.
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..and if u think simple chemicals could some how form life, u dont know real chemistry..u would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
@Mekiwyn ok show us some proof.lets see non life become alive.Ok sir..lets see some testable science to back that up..given the stale mate situation of biochemical chemistry..just how are u separating the right and left handed amino acids..to assemble life????...This is the major conundrum of Chirality!!..thers no such thing as simple life today or back millions of years ago..u have a faith in that
@pklukepk All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
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!!..moron atheists !!
@5tonyvvvv - Are you familiar with the concept: "Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam" ?
It looks like you are not - besides the fact if your information is true or not, all you are stating is: "I dont know how this could have happened, therefore, God did it"
@pklukepk Well were is the natural process of Homochirality?..digital code information? scientists can insert RNA with information from templates,and say look we created life..no they have only copied living information....abiogenesis Dunnit'.. is NOT an explanation.
@types10000 "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance..
You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL..everything is carefully watched at just the right TEMPERATURES!!! activated..with subunits to start it and bases along with million dollar synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!!..these are CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS!!! .. RNA arising...LOL more like plagiarizing information ..cut? and paste !!!...LOL!..
'You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL"
- no, it was subject to specific conditions ALL OF WHICH ARE FOUND ON AN EARLY EARTH.
hence my statement RNA has been shown to form under circumstances indicative of an early earth.
"synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!" - incorrect, this is pure fantasy and did not occur in the experiment, as demonstrated by my source.
Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
"Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life ever!"
- the fact you havnt seen it doesnt mean it cant occur.
- the experiments i cited earlier are incredible evidence it did happen.
"francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically" - and their claims have been debunked, both mathematically and through direct experimentation AS I ALREADY EVIDENCED.
@5tonyvvvv amino acids, assembled in peptide bonds, are available for purchase online or at your local medical research supplier. Please check your facts more carefully next time.
@PDelta41 peptide bonds...copied under controlled conditions and temperatures ..these are not geochemical relevant reactions...check your facts..and even if they were generated from scratch they would not further evolve into a cell..abiogenesis is impossible..and for nature to produce life ..is laughable!! and time and chance would never help!!
@5tonyvvvv I was merely mentioning that people HAVE been able to assemble amino acids into useful forms. Peptide bonds form the primary structure of proteins, which are made up of amino acids. And who said anything about "geochemical relevant reactions"? Amino acids spontaneously form peptide bonds under a large range of chemical and temperature conditions, not just 'room temperature' or the the mid range of liquid water. Depending on the polymers involved, they can form, and remain stable.
at temperatures well above boiling, or well below freezing, in extraordinarily acidic or alkaline conditions, and nature had far more time, room, materials, and various conditions with which to do it. Just because you cannot imagine it happening does not mean it did not, and scoffing at the idea does not impress nor sway me. It just persuades me that you lack the tools to understand a concept that you attack.
@PDelta41 what atheist scientists are proving is that it takes Intelligence to copy and borrow pre existing information ..under highly implausible man made conditions...
@5tonyvvvv It's not surprising that you're not at all aware how control experiments are done, real environments are replicated in the lab. All it's showing is that amino acids, nucleotide bases et al. can form naturally
@TheScienceFoundation form naturally LOL..where scientists are controlling every step of the experiment !!..and putting in and taking out what they want..so lets say scientists make DNA, RNA and all the proteins needed for cell..you really think it would self assemble into a living cell...LOL
@5tonyvvvv Again, you fail to understand the principle of a control experiment. The conditions existed naturally but are brought into the lab for the observers convenience only.
'you really think it would self assemble into a living cell'
@TheScienceFoundation Continually ignoring homochirality, and your proto cells only exist in your atheist in your atheist imagination..what atheist scientists are proving is that it takes Intelligence to copy and borrow pre existing information ..under highly implausible man made conditions...
Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn morons like u think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life
Modern evolutionary thought states, that given enough time and the right conditions, non-living molecules could organize themselves into living organisms. If Louis Pasteur proved more than 100 years ago that spontaneous generation was totally false, why do so many evolutionists today still base their belief on it? - Professor and Author, Terry Mondy
@LambLion777 Why goto pasteur that failed over 100 years ago. The theory is that through thermodynamics and chemistry that organic molecules can combine, eat and relipcate. This is possible and there are many explanations as to how this is possible. Of course noone was here billions of years ago to witness this. Given the same amount of time and a lab the size of the planet, maybe scientists can do this on demand. It is possible to deny that is foolish cause we are here. :)
All living organisms are maintained by numerous chemical pathways. Chemical products are synthesized through a long series of complex chemical reactions. In clotting of blood, there are two pathways intrinsic + extrinsic systems. Within these pathways, there are 12 steps, for blood clot formation. If just one of these sequences are NOT followed or left out, the clot will NOT form, so all are considered essential.Therefore, they must have been formed,as a unit. Explain, this type of evolution?
@LambLion777 "Therefore, they must have been formed,as a unit. Explain, this type of evolution?" Non sequitur! There is no valid assumption to be made here to say these formed as a unit and did NOT evolve from a simpler system or process...in rhetoric terminology, this is called moving the goalposts...ignoring one disproof of a claim and moving to another assertion...your Young Earth Creationism is showing...
@LambLion777 well what you're talking about is irreducable complexity. I'm sure that if you were to study this with an evolutionary biologist they would be able to explain to you how each process or step in this model would have some sort of benefit. Because something is too complex for you to easily understand does not make it false. Talk to the right people, not you tubers if you really want to know this answer.
The material from this guy is an EXCELLENT REPRESENTATION of the old maxim "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." He talks about basic biological concepts that might be addressed in a "biology 101" sort of first year college course. But he has a very poor conception of how the ideas work, what they "mean," and how they fit together with one another.
He is right in general, however: Science doesn't yet "know" how abiogenesis happened, and a range of hypotheses are now being tested. So what?
Spontaneous Generation = The formation of life from non-living things. Is there any experimental evidence, in science it can not be observed? NO. Evil-solution violates one of the most fundamentals LAWS of all Biology. This Law in Biology says all of life comes into the being of life, from another life forms. If it can not come to life, without the help of something else living, it is NOT, abiogensis and is NOT "spontaneous generation."
@LambLion777 OH dear---another stunned wonder who can't recognize letters...dyslexic, or just not literate? It is the Law of Biogenesis, discovered by Pasteur...it says that FOOD SPOILAGE is not the result of spontaneous emergence of contaminants, but of previous contamination by microorganisms. This has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis or evolution, you stupid,ignorant peckerwood!! Get a goddamn education and stop spouting off sheer stupidity and ignorance and making yourself an ass...
The people who made this video would have been better off, using their diplomas as tissue paper on the open oraphis's of their bodies. Why is creation "unthinkable, incredible, and irrational," to evolutionists? Could it be that they are unwilling to admit that SOMEONE is greater than themselves and is responsible for what we see in the Universe? Ah..em.
Scientists estimate that there are thousands of different chemicals involved in complex reactions within "average" living cells. Some of these chemicals are acids and others are basic. These chemicals would immediately react with another if it was not for intricate systems of buffer zones and walls, which would have to evolve simultaneously along with each of the thousands of cell chemicals to prevent chemical reaction or if formed at the incorrect timing Can you explain this by evolution?
@LambLion777 ~~YES...when you see this argument it means the ignorant incompetent bloodclot who originated it or parroted it from someone else has left out an ENTIRE class of cells, the Prokariotes...it means the argument is entirely nonseniscal and ought to immediately dismissed out of hand as utter rubbish...the earliest of the primitive prokariotes, the oldest cyanocacteria have no nucleus, no organelles, no DNA, and no proteins---just RNA. They predate photosynthesis and use...
ooops! Nonsensical...these early prokariotes use cyclic photophosphorylation for energy as they predate photosynthesis...Exxon-Mobil is using these to create energy and features the formula in their ad: 6H2O+6CO2 +(sunlight)-> C6H12O6+6O2 {1 sugar+ 6 Oxygen molecules}
BTW, this is how the free oxygen arose in the Earth's early atmosphere. Evolution is not required to explain the argument you outline...sheer stupid ignorant incompetence does the job just fine...
@LambLion777 I have to disagree with you. There was an experiment made by Dr Eckard Wimmer who combined strands of RNA with a simple nutrient rich solution and the RNA "came to life" he basically created an artificial virus. watch this video it explains it all. google dr eckard wimmer and you will see for yourself
@mickey: Enzymes, are specialized proteins, are absolutely nessary for the synthesis of DNA. Yet DNA is the very molecule that directs the production of enzymes within a cell. Therefore, enzyme molecules and DNA would have to evolve simultaneously or neither one would exist. Please explain, the simultaneous evolution of these two chemicals.
@mickey: Enzymes, are specialized proteins, are absolutely necessary for the synthesis of DNA. Yet DNA is the very molecule that directs the production of enzymes within a cell. Therefore, enzyme molecules and DNA would have to evolve simultaneously or neither one would exist. Please explain, the simultaneous evolution of these two chemicals.
"The current scientific models of abiogensis are actually simply attempts to explain how life could have come about with out the causation or intervention of any agent."
You say this as though it is a critique of the hypothesis of abiogenesis? You are simply stating a definition of what science is. You also present that their are different hypotheses of abiogenesis, again as if this is some kind of criticism. In the absense of any evidence this is the way science will work.
The problem here is your inablitly to accept that we don't know everything yet as if this is a fault of science. 500 years ago we knew even less. Look how far we have come. Look how far we have come in just the last 100 year or 10 years even. If it is possible to discover a working model of abiogenesis complete with lab experiments that produce examples of simple life then we get there. The fact that we aren't there already is not to say that the hypotheses are all wrong.
actually, dr. jack szostak demonstrated how life could form from organic molecules without any ridiculous probablity..watch cdk007's video of Szostaks research on abiogensis.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20 - and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
To say that no one really knows how life arose is a non-sequitor. Of course we don't, just as we don't have identities of all the pieces that made up the Earth at its formation. But we do know how it might have happened. It is certain that science will eventually produce life from non-life, probably in the not too distant future, Will it be exactly our life? No, probably not, but it will show all the properties of life, demonstrating that nature without the supernatural can explain life.
Macroevolution has not actually been observed, for obvious reasons. But there is an enormous amount of evidence pointing to the fact that macroevolution has actually occured. As for the evidence walk into a museum.
The horse evolution, where the first horse has 18 pairs of ribs, the next one 15, the next one 19 and the next one back to 18?, those fossils animals are not even related and are presented as evidence for the hallucination, come one, real evidences not lies.-
well, of course we cant agree onsomething we that happened without us being there.
Saying that cause its a 'theory' its flawed is rubbish. The theory of 'gravity' has different models, but we accept it as a fact.
Also im sick of people saying we cant make life ina lab... so whaty. The universe had billions of years, and trillions and trillions of planets to 'experiment' on.. All we need is the event to have occured ONCE, natural selection does the rest to diversify life
Well, he's wrong. Christians don't believe life came from non-life. The dust is arbitrary. It was God's living breath which gave Adam life. God has always been alive (at least according to Christian theology) am i right? Any christian takers?
Repeatung all this stuff does NOT make you "brilliant". So dipshit...there are hundreds of scenarios showing how abiogenesis could occur. And this is "making fun of abiogenesis" I find it is the precise nature of science to propose many ways to generate the building blocks of life. Science USES the human mind to get to the explanations of life. God and religion FREEZE the human mind for stupified thoughtless propositions! I ask...do you want to USE your mind or FREEZE it!
You almost make a good point right at the beginning. Even supposing a creator intervened in starting life on the planet this still doesn`t explain how he did it. Was it a magic trick? Or did he set up a number of chain reactions that eventually led to life? Of course if the 1st was true then science and knowledge would have no meaning and we may just as well not bother trying to discover anything. If the second was the case then whether a creator was there or not is irrelevant to the question.
Ok Also most models of abiogenisis would never say that the original life that formed had protiens. Peptides and mabey eventually RNA. You just have to have a self replicating molecule inside of a membrane of say fatty acids. You dont have to start off with the complex molecules like Protiens and DNA to eventually form them through the proccess of natural selection. Both Peptides and Fatty acids occur naturally.
Yes u r right... RNA molecules can have catalistic properties, like proteins. Its very plausable that a string of RNA could self replicate... a sort of basic version of how bacteria replicates.
We only need this to have occured ONCE in nature... If in thr right conditions, you have a molecule that replicates infinates amounts of times, competiting with others in a energy rich warm environment and we have our first unicellular organisms, like bacteria which is likely to be first on earth
Ok the reason why there is no consesus is that there are several ways this could feasibly happen. Of course they cant say where and how exactly how it happened. We WERE NOT THERE and short of a time machine all we can do is look at the evidence. I dont think anyone says that Abiogenisis is for sure how it happened. Abiogenisis just is a much better educated guess than say Creationism. On the other hand I would be willing to bet money that there will be abiogenisis in a lab within 40 years.
Every single code that we know of comes from a mind, to conclude that Genetic Code comes from an ID it´s rational and the observational data lead us to such a conclusion, in the other hand, if a bunch of expertise in biochemstry somehow in the next 40 years or so produce life, that will ONLY prove that ID to produce life, but as long as I can you, you´re not even enough to grasp this elementary concepts.
Crystals spontaneously artrange themselves in a pattern, so does ice crystals . They look 'desingned' under microscopes, but we know no intellect is behind it.
The information for life (DNA) is a string of nucleotides in a certain order. Neclotides arrange themselves in patterns in solution... Its not too hard to picture that the right sequence just occuring ONCE creates a self relplicating molecule. Once we have this molecule encaspulated in basic cell, natural selection does the rest.
Nucleotides do arrange themselves in chains in solution (to repeat myself)
A chain of nucleotides is what all life uses as information (DNA or RNA) We can see that mutaitons cause changes in the chains, causing a downstream change in the protein it makes. We can do this in the lab. and have done. this is the basis of evolution. We know for a fact that mutatiosn causes changes the trait of the organism. if the change causes an advantage, it survives.
@chuyaventuras: I know of no body of knowledge in physics, chemistry, engineering or information theory that requires a "mind" or some form of intelligence to create a code, which is, after all, just a mapping of one string of chemical elements to another. "Codes" are no more mysterious than any other biological structure; there are "codes" in the pattems of seeds in a pod, or in segments of an insect's body, or silicon crystals. Tell us why you think an ID is needful to create this code.
sorry this is wrong, there is a difference between a pattern and information, informatino theory states that info can only come from a sender, and must originate mentally..
@zenithar6666I I still know of no requirement that a code requires an intelligence to create. I see that there are at last four theories on how the genetic code was compiled, none requiring an intelligence. In information theory, a code is not information; it is a mapping of information from one media to another. A secret codebook, likewise, is not information in itself; it is worthless without an encoded message that needs to be decoded.
zenith: Sorry about the examples; they are not codings, and I was in error in mentioning them. Nevertheless, I stand by the first part of the message, which I have just reinterated.
You sounded very credible up til about 8 minutes in, when you started talking about complex proteins and cellular machinery. Early life wouldn't need these things. All it would need is RNA and the chemicals to copy itself. Not even a cell membrane, although that is actually the most feasible element in the model.
What this sounds like is an argument of irreducible complexity, which is pretty weak. Irreducibility exists because a creature eventually becomes dependent on existing structures.
yea that's funny because a Ph.D. biologists emailed me about three weeks ago and asked if he could include that part in a book he is writing.
I think you don't know as much as you think you do. Keep studying. There is no known chemical process (without the complex organelles) that can cause RNA to replicate accurately.
Isn't it the process of replicating innacurately that leads to evolution, though?
Some innacuracies in RNA would've resulted in stronger chemical bonds, making it harder for them to be broken up by the environment. They'd then stand a better chance of replicating than the ones with weaker bonds, thus begins evolution. The RNA being copied accurately would result in the extinction of life, before it even started.
Gesmehod's right, though. The complex structures of modern cells weren't vital
@psychetruth: Really? 10% error rate? I'd really like a good microbiologist's citation on that. I'd hate to think our protein machinery is that faulty. The know error rate for human DNA is 12x10^-8 for each base pair per generation, or about 175 per germ cell through it's entire lifetime..
Early life wouldn´t need complex proteins and cellular machinery...
That´s an hallucination or something you can observe, test, prove and demostrate?
No my friend you got to make you research, to make even things worse, cell are irreducible complex, don´t argue this, unless you believe the mouse trap can be used as a tie-clip.
A mouse can't be used as a tie clip, but a piece of RNA can be used as a ribosome. Modern cells are irreducibly complex, but then so is a car. Ask an ancient Roman to build a car; won't happen. This is because technology builds off of itself in subtle ways, not *BAM* all at once.
Don't compare the first life to a cell, compare it to a virus. Viruses aren't technically alive but they're a good start.
Abiogenesis as a theory has a lot of bugs in it. But then so does gravity.
All the conjetures, assumptions and hallucinations that scientists made about the origin of life are ludicrous.-
First hallucination:Life began as a simple form....nooope, science has not a single iota fact to support the idea that life started on a simple way, that´s something you have to conjeture, suppose and hallucinate.-
Second hallucination:No propossed abiogenesis hypothesis has ever been proven to ocurre or have ocurred "in nature" all of them are MAN LAB MEDIA CONTROLLED
You seem to have a great understanding on the subject of the scientific method...
Any sources for that claim, what is the evidence that life started complex and fully formed? Where is the evidence for the "God made man out of clay and the woman out of a Rib" Hypothesis?
What do you want? A time machine? You demonstrate quite an ignorant stance. How, if not by replicating the conditions of early earth atmospehere are we explore the mechanisms?
If evolution were true, we should expect to find real evidences of such event, but the observational data available nowadays is not in support of such a claim, rather supports a creation model, of course you´ll deny it by default.-
The fossil record has been, is and will be saying NOT to evolution.-
We don´t see any plant or animal turning into anything else but a variety of the same plant and animal, that´s what we observe, conjeture otherwise is not-science, is an hallucination
No, given the nature of fossilization it is impossible to find fossilized protocells and the likes. That's why it will stay an hypothesis, we are only able to find mechanism by which it could happen.
There is no scientific creation model, no mechanisms, no experiments, no predictions... no science... and because science does not comment on the supernatural I dismiss it by default, when it comes to research.
Evidence for the supossed NO to evolution would be nice, don't forget to include some for genetic phylogeny, comparative morphology and anatomy, embryonal ontogensis and so on.
Speciation has been observed... I know you'll cry out that it is only micro... but since that has been debunked so often you might as well look it up yourself.
And yes we don't see anything turning into something else... just like we don't really notice ourselves aging, in comparsion to the day before.
I know science DOES NOT comment in the supernatural, of course not, Science is what we can observe, test, by means of natural processes, I undestand that.-
Speciation, now that you mention it, Do you think that this very process of speciation that we observe in nature today could turn pakicetus into something else, then into something else and so forth and finally whales?, since you believe so, I do admire your capacity to imagine, hallucinate if you will.
You think speciation, homology, ERVs, embryos, Fossil Record provides enough evidence to make a fairy tale come true?
Your magic is time, given 300 millions to a frog it can turn into the biodivesity around us, and you call it science and you feel too proud of it, again the fossil record by itself demolish any single ancestry-to-apes hypothesis, but you´re blind to any evidence that supports not your fairy tale, that´s all.
You failed to present any evidence against it, nor did you answer any question.
Yet you think that your opinion/ignorance of the evidence is enough to make an argument against the synthetic theory of Evolution. Please don't embarass yourself.
Since time isn't magic... ah well forget it.
It is not only the fossile record but genetics comparative morphology/anatomy, etc.
And the last bit is a projection of your shortcomings on me.
"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7).-
No matter how many explanations are given, punctualism, stable niches, or alike, the problem will remain for ever, no rational expalantion has ever given, all of them are biased, only to save the fairy tale from bankrupcy.
Quotemining does absolutely nothing to help your cause, quite the contrary it makes you look like a fool grasping for straws.
If you were unaware of that I highly suggest you post the quote into google, the first result you should get will lead you to the talkorigins quotemine faq it's quote #31.
"No matter how many explanations are given [...] no rational expalantion has ever given [...]"
Are you confused?
And here goes the conspiracy routine... booooring.
I bet you´re right, but if telling you the truly wonderfull fact that the fossil record has two important features:Stasis and Sudden appearance DOES NOT help my cause, what does?
Nooope, it is a truly wonderful fact observed in the fossil record by ALL Paleontologists, and that indeed really helps my cause, whether you admit it or not.
I never denied the fact. But you seem unaware of what a quotemine is.
Furthermore your answer indicates that you did not research that quote, or for that matter anything related to Stephen J. Gould, otherwise you would have come across the term of punctuated equilibrium.
Which with further research you might have found out takes into account these phases of stasis and sudden appearances (aka cladogenesis).
Though, I must admit I am courious as to how punctuated equilibrium helps your cause.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1.Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear.-
2. Sudden appearance. Fossils appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
So you´re fully satisfied with those given explanations, aren´t you?
Puntucated equilibrium is the modern version of Charly failed fairy tale of gradualism, but since the fossil record DID NOT conformed to Charly predictions, you know if my theory be true numberles intermediate varieties......Punctuated equilibrium came to save the fairy tale from humilliation, but do you notice that punctualism only make an evident falseness of gradualism. (Charly fairy tale)
So you do not actually understand the scientific method.
It is not about fairy tales... that would be the bible...duh.
What is your problem with punctuated equilibrium it is essentially a form of gradualism. You should have read the wikipedia article and should have come across that in the misconceptions part.
Next part you are arguing against transistionals?
You give P.E. way too much credit. No matter if gradualistic or punctuational, the phylogenetic relatedness would still be the same.
well sudden appearnace mayhave occured because the animals developeed hard shells which would have fossilizes.. soft animals, which logic says must have existed before hard shelled animals would not fosslize. This most likely caused the 'cambrian' explosion.
Stasis I dont relaly know about, but I do know we have numerous animals closely simlar to humans in the record, such as homo habilis, neanderthal etc.. that show a logical progression to walking on two legs.
Yes evolution is an observable event. There are experiments that have been going on for decades on evolving bacteria.
Of course you cannot witness complex life evolve as we only live for 70 years. It takes millions. But the geological and fossil record strongly suggest a progression from simpler forms to more complex forms of life.
A hallucination? how do you explain hobo habilis, neanderthal etc fossils? How do you explain the fact simpler fossils are older than complex,showing progresin
Trilobites used to had one of the most complex eyes in the history of life, saying that there is a progression in complexity is like saying that those Cambrian creatures were not.
IM glad youbrought up trilobites. They are superb pieces of evidence for evolution as there are so many fossils. We can literally see how they evolved.. including the development of the eyes. Its likely that later forms of life evolved from these creatures.. including us.
Why dont you believe in evolution? Is it because it doesnt fit with your theology.? I cant see how you can not believe something that the evidence is strongly in favour of.
They just appeared on the fossil record and that´s a truly wonderfull fact, sudden appearence and stasis it´s encouraged to be studied objetively, don´t you think?
And by the way, nobody knows where did the Cambrian marine creatures evolved from, they just appeared with no trace of ancestors, indicating something else other than magic evolution.
I bet you´re wrong, there´re fossils of jelly-fishes dated back to the Cambrian era, so your education has failed to give you the knowledge you need to debate properly, get a good education first if you want to comment on the tube, don´t make an utter fool of yourself.
If evolution does not exist....
See the evidences objetively and come to your own conclusions.
i dont know the history of trilobites, my degree doesnt tocuh on that.. so my education hasnt failed me, as its not relevant to what I study. I do a medical course.
Look, you can say whatever about trilobites and pick at very specific things, but to reject the theory of evolution in my opinon is so absurd its almost perverse... It sickens me. I just cant see how any educated human being can reject something that is no blatantly obviously true.
Do you truly believe that the whole diversity of life on earth living and extinct descent somehow from a simple single living entity or whatever it was? Do you really believe this scientific hallucination?
You have got to kidding or gone insane, or maybe your education has deeply deceived you.
Because nine muscles are atached to it and whitout it there would be no bone to attach them, and if there is no muscles my body can not perform important functins, plain and simple.
The human body is riddled with problems, which suggests strongly that there wass no inteliigence behind it. Nature is an extremelly unorganised mess of organisms fighting over resources. 99.9% of animals are all extinct.
More questions for the god squad?
Why do we use oxygen, a highly toxic gas for respiration?
YOur most basic biochemict and biologist needs to send god an email on some changes he dhould make. If we are in his image, than god porbably died from choking on an apple.
I bet you´re right, a modern and sophisticated jet plane also is riddled with too many problems, so many that sometimes they crash to the ground or explode in airborne, that suggests strongly, indeed it proves that there was no intelligence behind its construction, I bet you´re right, I bet you.-
I see why you´re an atheist, you have serious, unsurmountable problems with your logic and rationality.
I read it very carefully.. YOu say that intelligence makes planes that some time explode, so thats the reason why intelligence makes humans that sometimes gets cancer
I respond by saying any docter could come up with loads of basic structural changes in the human body to improve it.
If god designed these imperfect bodies in his image, than that means he/she is not perfect. God by definition is perfect, so I can only conclude that thegod of christianity/islam/judaism does not exist.
Nothing that you said in your last comment has anything to do with the lack of logic and rationality you showed, you´re fleeding away instead of getting closer to even have a clue what I told, read my comment back and try again
I think we dont understand each other.. I suppose someone who only believes in things based on a logical conclusion based on the material evidence in front of us, opposed to someone who believes in supernatural things based on a 2000 year old book are never going to agree on points of science.
If giving you a so simple analogy you went clueless, Why should I expect you to understand the reality behind a material world?, so if you only believe in things based on logical conclusion, How come you did not come to the obvious conlclusion you should come?, I assume your logic it´s not enough to pick up what a meaningfull material evidence is all about.
The aeroplane analogy just proves my point... Humans are not the result of grand intelligence, hence so many problems in our bodies. An aeroplane is designed by less than perfect beings (humans) hence why they have the occasioanl problem.
DOnt you see how your logic fails. You cant honestly say the human body is perfect. IT is riddled with trade offs, that any sane person can clearly see is the result of millions of years of evolutionary changes. I can point u to so much evidence in its favou
Now I see, in my opinion there are some flaws on your logic which of course you didn´t pick up from the analogy and you´ll never will, of course according the principles of logic, but that aside.-
I´m just curios, what is your so much evidence in its favor
I could write a whole book on it to be honest, but Ill focus on a couple
The clearly redundant features in many many mammals like whales and bats. The fact we all share the same body plans,l excpet the proportions and sizes differ.
The insides of a human (which ive had the pleasure of looking inside) is opne big mess of organs stuffed into gaps, wires all over the place.. its so obviously not designed its perverse to think otherwise
I'm a little put off by your terminology.
You keep saying "living matter" and "non-living matter", and I think that's a misleading direction to take. What exactly is "living matter" anyway? Is the sulfur in my body alive? Or the iron in my blood? Is iron in the ground dead?
What you should be saying is "organic" and "non-organic". Life is made up of organic compounds.
FrankLightheart 1 day ago
If abiogenesis could occur, it would have to form all Left handed amino acids, including the DNA and RNA as well as the little machines (which are made of proteins) to form the protiens as well as other functions. Since life is made from all Left handed amino acids, and scientists can not force amino acids to form only left handed, it is life to come about by chance. Only a powerful intelligence could be responsible for life and the Bible says God spoke and it was so.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndyG792 If abiogenesis could occur, it would have to form all Left handed amino acids, including the DNA and RNA as well as the little machines (which are made of proteins) to form the protiens as well as other functions. Since life is made from all Left handed amino acids, and scientists can not force amino acids to form only left handed, it is impossible for life to come about by chance. Only a powerful intelligence could be responsible for life and the Bible says God spoke and it was so.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago
As far as Abiogenesis is concerned, although there are various hypothises, they all do agree that it probably started chemically adapting from simple to more complex organisms.
rossini55 3 weeks ago
Ok, I looked at some of the comments and went back to watch. Two more things. 1: The only things necessary for life to start are a way to multiply and a way to get more material. This is very important to understand. 2: Science doesn't say "This is how life started", only "This is how it could have started" and they give very sound evidence. Oh and creationists DO claim that they KNOW how life was created.
TheSatanicView 5 months ago
I watched your video until 1:33 mark. I had to stop because you are discussing a scientific theory and you don't even understand what the word theory means. It's not just some asshole saying something you know, and it's not just some guess. To put it in perspective for you I will name some theories; The earth revolves around the sun.... I don't even wat to go on, do some research and learn vocabulary befor you make a video.
TheSatanicView 5 months ago
@psychetruth "The current scientific models of abiogensis are actually simply attempts to explain how life could have come about with out the causation or intervention of any agent."
Wrong.
Current models are an attempt to uncover the natural agents, qualities, conditions and processes that can produce life by natural, mechanistic means.
Creationists impose their prejudice and pretend that the research really about disproving their unfalsifiable claims. That is disingenuous and arrogant.
Terncote 6 months ago
Just as I thought Creationists and Atheists fighting and quarreling over something they both cannot explain properly. Time to think outside the box.....
PhysiologicAli 7 months ago
@PhysiologicAli You do not have to know about abiogenesis.to be a Atheists it is no believe in a god/gods a lack of evidence ,Just because we do not understand how life came about dose not mean a god did it
Tony2438 6 months ago
@Tony2438
That is a very valid point. I personally retain my faith in God for psychological and practical purposes because this gives you some sort of a "cushion" in day to day life. It might be a delusion as Dawkins put it but it works with so many believers around the world.Unlike Dawkins I do not think that all religious people are stupid it is not their fault that science has failed to provide adequate answers to the big questions. Lets see what happens next.
PhysiologicAli 6 months ago
@PhysiologicAli I do not know what happens when we die I do not think anyone knows Sciences is not static it does move on opposed too religion which can not move on I defend your right to believe in what ever But the problem I have with religion is denying of the theory of evaluation and the piratical application which come from the theory I do not know of any religion that answers question to the meaning of life all life gods too so why?
Tony2438 6 months ago
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." ~ Isaac Asimov
Theory =! Hypothesis =! Conjecture
A fact is an observable phenomenon that can be described in terms of "laws". We explain how laws work as best (logically) we can in terms of a "theory" which can allow us to make reliable predictions. Anyone who thinks that "hypotheses" are breast fed into "theories" and if they're good grow up to become "laws", has no idea what science is.
DRAKULU 9 months ago
this guy is just NOT interesting..
CosmosCalling 9 months ago
Why are supporters of a theory dealing with constant change and adaptation so afraid of it being changed and adapted?
sobpatrick 10 months ago
In the early days before biochemistry life was 'assumed' to be made from distinctive elements. The discovery of the role of carbon dioxide in plants in the early 19th century changed that;life was how molecules are assembled not what its' made of. The later discovery of amino acids gave the base of all living organisms. Understanding respiration and photosynthesis gave us ideas of energy in life. Then science showed how nature makes amino acids from inorganic sources. 170 years of work.
granddad2002 10 months ago
I watched all three of your videos on Abiogenesis and I loved them. First of all you do a good job teaching about the scientific side, so I learned from you about the theory. Secondly, you are very honest about the probability of it happening, which is quite unlikely. Also that the proto cell is nothing but hypothetical, a scientist's wild assumption. So, thank you for that. I am quite glad to continue in the intelligent design theory. It makes sense, & so does the Biblical story of creation.
RichardFriend48 10 months ago
@RichardFriend48 This video is old and then guy is woefully misinformed.
For a more recent and far more thorough examination of the Abiogenesis hypthesis please research better quality resources.
We've been creating virus's in the laboratory for over 15 years now. Within the next 10 years we will most likely achieve true abiogenesis in the lab. What happens then? What will it take for people to discard ancient myths?
Please watch the link below for more info.
Copy/Paste
watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
JayJayAbels 10 months ago
@JayJayAbels Do a search for a video on YouTube called: "Intelligent Design 4.7 Darwin to Intelligent Design".
Dean Kenyon who wrote the popular book called Biochemical Evolution in the 70s, talks about what was missing in his analysis, the origin of genetic information itself. How did life organize itself without genetic information? and his conclusion on it. Very interesting.
Also search for: "Dean Kenyon PhD Speaks Out Against Evolutionary Dogmatism"
RichardFriend48 10 months ago
@RichardFriend48 Yeah Dean... the author of "Of Pandas and People". The guy is a crock of shit bro. Intelligent Design has failed IN and OUT of court for decades now. It is NOT a scientific theory. It is NOT factual.
But it IS Creationism disguised behind a new, generic title. It's absolute bullshit.
The Theory of Evolution is a fact. Period. It happened whether you want it to or not. And it CONTINUES to happen.
Abiogenesis is another story though. Still far more fascinating than God Did It.
JayJayAbels 10 months ago
@JayJayAbels Your "faith" in evolution is very strong. Where Dean failed was in his "faith" in evolution & abiogenesis. But finally he saw through the lack of scientific evidence for both that it was impossible. He was humble enough to accept the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible, & that evolution gives no answer to the origin of genetic instructions.Genetic instructions that are clearly intelligent, so where did the intelligent information come from but from a super-intelligence?
RichardFriend48 10 months ago
@RichardFriend48 Smh. There are 500,000 scientists in this world. 99.5% of them take evolution to be true - regardless of their religious beliefs. (That's 497,500 scientists). Which leaves us with 2,500 scientists who don't believe that evolution is the best explanation to define the diversity of life on this planet.
Funny that you JUST HAPPEN to agree with the extreme minority.
But instead of appealing to authority or statistics - would ANY legitimate evidence change your mind?
JayJayAbels 10 months ago
@JayJayAbels When you have an educational system for the last 50 plus years that allows only one view to be taught, & the other view ridiculed, what you would expect is to have 95% of the students believing, without question, what they are taught. Only the 5% did the critical thinking on what they were taught, the tough questioning, & they rejected it. Actually the percentage is higher than 5%, because some scientists are closet creationists, knowing they would lose their jobs....
RichardFriend48 10 months ago
@RichardFriend48,
Science isn't about "views". It's about experimenting, researching, and observing. The fact that there are some people out there who don't like what the experimenting, researching, and observing produces because they think it conflicts with their particular religious belief is beside the point.
dmnemaine 4 months ago
@dmnemaine But no one has observed Abiogenesis. Watch all 3 videos of Origin of Life -- Abiogenesis videos from this guy. He does a good job at explaining that naturalistic scienctists have come up with their own ideas (basically guesses, which really are no better than some myths) about how life began. Also, know that there are many scientists who don't like what the Bible says about creation, because it conflicts with the myths of evolution they have been taught in their science classes.
RichardFriend48 4 months ago
@RichardFriend48, Evolution is not a myth. It has been observed. There is a multitude of evidence that has been found supporting it. Besides, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Two completely different things. Back to abiogenesis. Evidence pointing to it has absolutely been observed. You are wrong.
dmnemaine 4 months ago
@dmnemaine I found a good youtube video about why chemical evolution or abiogenesis could not have happended. It has to do with genentic instructions in the cell. Go to YouTube & do a search for "Dean Kenyon PhD Speaks Out Against Evolutionary Dogmatism". Dean Kenyon co-wrote the book on Biochemical Predestination back in the late 60's/early 70's and has changed his mind. He now says that "We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest of cells"
RichardFriend48 4 months ago
@boblafro "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance.
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@boblafro You believe in magic then with out the magician..LOL..Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
Yeah this is undirected natural processes..LOL
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@5tonyvvvv No it makes more sense and is far more logical to believe that a fully formed, extremely complex human being was zapped into existence from mud. And then his female friend was zapped into existence out of a male rib bone.
I don't understand how "atheists" can't see the simplicity in that? It's like... duh - of course god it!
It says so right there in the Bible!
Don't waste your time with these demonic child of Darwin! They probably plant more fossils every day.
JayJayAbels 10 months ago
@JayJayAbels "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@JayJayAbels Learn Homochirality!!!!!..Stubborn atheist!!!
The synthesis of equal mixtures of racemates
in a solution, there is NO way to get the stereospecific,you cant separate them.
synthesis of molecules without using already EXISTING enzymes Thus, the products of theoretical random
reactions tend to be mixtures of isomers (pairs of chiral compounds)50/50 solution!!!! racemic mixtures can produce life dummy!!!!
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
@JayJayAbels Atheist are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
Yeah this is undirected natural processes..LOL
5tonyvvvv 10 months ago
At some point there was no life. And now there is life. So, at some point, some abiogenetic event happened. Be aware that the first cells weren't as complex as they are today.
And you are confusing the scientific term, "theory," with the colloquially version of it. A scientific theory explains facts, so it isn't just an idea. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis as of now.
Don't think that something is "just a theory."
Look up cdk007's video on abiogenesis. It's the leading explanation.
berniebay 10 months ago
you are assuming that all cells and life started as you see them today. Common mistake in most people. Maybe one day you will have the time to actually stop and learn these things. Good luck brother, maybe one day ill see a vid from you that makes sense.
Mekiwyn 1 year ago
@Mekiwyn your assuming that life was simple..common mistake u people make.homochirality is something u dont understand
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!!..and if u think simple chemicals could some how form life, u dont know real chemistry..u would rather believe in some unknown chemistry than an intelligence..this is why Miller failed to make life in a test tube and no building blocks were ever made or assembled..right and left handed amino acids together are toxic to life..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@Mekiwyn ok show us some proof.lets see non life become alive.Ok sir..lets see some testable science to back that up..given the stale mate situation of biochemical chemistry..just how are u separating the right and left handed amino acids..to assemble life????...This is the major conundrum of Chirality!!..thers no such thing as simple life today or back millions of years ago..u have a faith in that
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv - how about you pick up and read a fucking book instead of randomly ranting screaming for evidence that you can find yourself.
pklukepk 1 year ago
@pklukepk All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.
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!!..moron atheists !!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv - Are you familiar with the concept: "Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam" ?
It looks like you are not - besides the fact if your information is true or not, all you are stating is: "I dont know how this could have happened, therefore, God did it"
Idiot theist. learn something
pklukepk 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv - when are you idiots going to learn that without evidence, "Magic man Dunnit" is NOT an explanation.
pklukepk 1 year ago
@pklukepk Well were is the natural process of Homochirality?..digital code information? scientists can insert RNA with information from templates,and say look we created life..no they have only copied living information....abiogenesis Dunnit'.. is NOT an explanation.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
the following have been demonstrated to occur spontaneously under circumstance indicative of an early earth:
inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - abenteuer-universum[.]de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi[.]nlm[.]nih[.]gov/pubmed/909793
ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule) - wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine) - biology-direct[.]com/content/5/1/36
types10000 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
"ok show us some proof.lets see non life become alive"
- amino acids can spontaneously form from inorganic matter
- ribonucleotides can spontaneously form from amino acids
- RNA can spontaneously form from ribonucleotides
RNA is capable of self-replication and basic virus' are nothing more than RNA with a protein coat
questions?
types10000 11 months ago
@types10000 "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance..
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv
"This engineered RNA would break down do to the unstable conditions of it"
- except it didnt, it went on to form primitive ribosomes.
haha your arguing from an unevidenced hypothesis, im arguing from what directly demonstrated.
types10000 11 months ago
@types10000
You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL..everything is carefully watched at just the right TEMPERATURES!!! activated..with subunits to start it and bases along with million dollar synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!!..these are CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS!!! .. RNA arising...LOL more like plagiarizing information ..cut? and paste !!!...LOL!..
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
'You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL"
- no, it was subject to specific conditions ALL OF WHICH ARE FOUND ON AN EARLY EARTH.
hence my statement RNA has been shown to form under circumstances indicative of an early earth.
"synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!" - incorrect, this is pure fantasy and did not occur in the experiment, as demonstrated by my source.
nothing was copied
types10000 11 months ago
@types10000
Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
"Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life ever!"
- the fact you havnt seen it doesnt mean it cant occur.
- the experiments i cited earlier are incredible evidence it did happen.
"francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically" - and their claims have been debunked, both mathematically and through direct experimentation AS I ALREADY EVIDENCED.
types10000 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv
- you've claimed abiogenesis isnt possible and that RNA cant arise on it's own
- i have provided peer reviewed experiments that directly contradict this
- your only response has been to make the BASELESS CLAIM that the experiments copied existing RNA
- my sources detail all procedures used and NOWHERE did copying take place, it all arose spontaneously
types10000 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv amino acids, assembled in peptide bonds, are available for purchase online or at your local medical research supplier. Please check your facts more carefully next time.
PDelta41 11 months ago
@PDelta41 peptide bonds...copied under controlled conditions and temperatures ..these are not geochemical relevant reactions...check your facts..and even if they were generated from scratch they would not further evolve into a cell..abiogenesis is impossible..and for nature to produce life ..is laughable!! and time and chance would never help!!
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I was merely mentioning that people HAVE been able to assemble amino acids into useful forms. Peptide bonds form the primary structure of proteins, which are made up of amino acids. And who said anything about "geochemical relevant reactions"? Amino acids spontaneously form peptide bonds under a large range of chemical and temperature conditions, not just 'room temperature' or the the mid range of liquid water. Depending on the polymers involved, they can form, and remain stable.
PDelta41 11 months ago
at temperatures well above boiling, or well below freezing, in extraordinarily acidic or alkaline conditions, and nature had far more time, room, materials, and various conditions with which to do it. Just because you cannot imagine it happening does not mean it did not, and scoffing at the idea does not impress nor sway me. It just persuades me that you lack the tools to understand a concept that you attack.
PDelta41 11 months ago
@PDelta41 what atheist scientists are proving is that it takes Intelligence to copy and borrow pre existing information ..under highly implausible man made conditions...
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv It's not surprising that you're not at all aware how control experiments are done, real environments are replicated in the lab. All it's showing is that amino acids, nucleotide bases et al. can form naturally
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation form naturally LOL..where scientists are controlling every step of the experiment !!..and putting in and taking out what they want..so lets say scientists make DNA, RNA and all the proteins needed for cell..you really think it would self assemble into a living cell...LOL
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Again, you fail to understand the principle of a control experiment. The conditions existed naturally but are brought into the lab for the observers convenience only.
'you really think it would self assemble into a living cell'
Argument from incredulity, another fallacy.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Continually ignoring permeable micelle membrane host cells which form naturally is still not an argument.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Continually ignoring homochirality, and your proto cells only exist in your atheist in your atheist imagination..what atheist scientists are proving is that it takes Intelligence to copy and borrow pre existing information ..under highly implausible man made conditions...
5tonyvvvv 11 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Ignoring circular polarity and the fact that peptide bonding of amino acids isn't random isn't an argument either.
No, the bilayer lipids exist in reality and in very plausible settings, as shown in Szostaks work
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist morons need to learn basic chemistry and Homochirality if they life could happen by chance and time,first life by chance would be its own Paradox..and could never happen..science has reached a dead end..only stubborn morons like u think it can happen purely by time and chance,even evolution scientists know simple chemicals cant make life
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Modern evolutionary thought states, that given enough time and the right conditions, non-living molecules could organize themselves into living organisms. If Louis Pasteur proved more than 100 years ago that spontaneous generation was totally false, why do so many evolutionists today still base their belief on it? - Professor and Author, Terry Mondy
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 Why goto pasteur that failed over 100 years ago. The theory is that through thermodynamics and chemistry that organic molecules can combine, eat and relipcate. This is possible and there are many explanations as to how this is possible. Of course noone was here billions of years ago to witness this. Given the same amount of time and a lab the size of the planet, maybe scientists can do this on demand. It is possible to deny that is foolish cause we are here. :)
Mekiwyn 1 year ago
All living organisms are maintained by numerous chemical pathways. Chemical products are synthesized through a long series of complex chemical reactions. In clotting of blood, there are two pathways intrinsic + extrinsic systems. Within these pathways, there are 12 steps, for blood clot formation. If just one of these sequences are NOT followed or left out, the clot will NOT form, so all are considered essential.Therefore, they must have been formed,as a unit. Explain, this type of evolution?
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 "Therefore, they must have been formed,as a unit. Explain, this type of evolution?" Non sequitur! There is no valid assumption to be made here to say these formed as a unit and did NOT evolve from a simpler system or process...in rhetoric terminology, this is called moving the goalposts...ignoring one disproof of a claim and moving to another assertion...your Young Earth Creationism is showing...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@LambLion777 well what you're talking about is irreducable complexity. I'm sure that if you were to study this with an evolutionary biologist they would be able to explain to you how each process or step in this model would have some sort of benefit. Because something is too complex for you to easily understand does not make it false. Talk to the right people, not you tubers if you really want to know this answer.
Mekiwyn 1 year ago
The material from this guy is an EXCELLENT REPRESENTATION of the old maxim "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." He talks about basic biological concepts that might be addressed in a "biology 101" sort of first year college course. But he has a very poor conception of how the ideas work, what they "mean," and how they fit together with one another.
He is right in general, however: Science doesn't yet "know" how abiogenesis happened, and a range of hypotheses are now being tested. So what?
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Spontaneous Generation = The formation of life from non-living things. Is there any experimental evidence, in science it can not be observed? NO. Evil-solution violates one of the most fundamentals LAWS of all Biology. This Law in Biology says all of life comes into the being of life, from another life forms. If it can not come to life, without the help of something else living, it is NOT, abiogensis and is NOT "spontaneous generation."
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 OH dear---another stunned wonder who can't recognize letters...dyslexic, or just not literate? It is the Law of Biogenesis, discovered by Pasteur...it says that FOOD SPOILAGE is not the result of spontaneous emergence of contaminants, but of previous contamination by microorganisms. This has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis or evolution, you stupid,ignorant peckerwood!! Get a goddamn education and stop spouting off sheer stupidity and ignorance and making yourself an ass...
pontecanis 1 year ago
The people who made this video would have been better off, using their diplomas as tissue paper on the open oraphis's of their bodies. Why is creation "unthinkable, incredible, and irrational," to evolutionists? Could it be that they are unwilling to admit that SOMEONE is greater than themselves and is responsible for what we see in the Universe? Ah..em.
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 With God anything is possible, thus evolution and abigenesis are possible.
ReeseCoveredDrowzee 1 year ago
Scientists estimate that there are thousands of different chemicals involved in complex reactions within "average" living cells. Some of these chemicals are acids and others are basic. These chemicals would immediately react with another if it was not for intricate systems of buffer zones and walls, which would have to evolve simultaneously along with each of the thousands of cell chemicals to prevent chemical reaction or if formed at the incorrect timing Can you explain this by evolution?
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 ~~YES...when you see this argument it means the ignorant incompetent bloodclot who originated it or parroted it from someone else has left out an ENTIRE class of cells, the Prokariotes...it means the argument is entirely nonseniscal and ought to immediately dismissed out of hand as utter rubbish...the earliest of the primitive prokariotes, the oldest cyanocacteria have no nucleus, no organelles, no DNA, and no proteins---just RNA. They predate photosynthesis and use...
pontecanis 1 year ago
ooops! Nonsensical...these early prokariotes use cyclic photophosphorylation for energy as they predate photosynthesis...Exxon-Mobil is using these to create energy and features the formula in their ad: 6H2O+6CO2 +(sunlight)-> C6H12O6+6O2 {1 sugar+ 6 Oxygen molecules}
BTW, this is how the free oxygen arose in the Earth's early atmosphere. Evolution is not required to explain the argument you outline...sheer stupid ignorant incompetence does the job just fine...
pontecanis 1 year ago
Comment removed
mickeyblueeyes1983 1 year ago
@LambLion777 I have to disagree with you. There was an experiment made by Dr Eckard Wimmer who combined strands of RNA with a simple nutrient rich solution and the RNA "came to life" he basically created an artificial virus. watch this video it explains it all. google dr eckard wimmer and you will see for yourself
mickeyblueeyes1983 1 year ago
@mickey: Enzymes, are specialized proteins, are absolutely nessary for the synthesis of DNA. Yet DNA is the very molecule that directs the production of enzymes within a cell. Therefore, enzyme molecules and DNA would have to evolve simultaneously or neither one would exist. Please explain, the simultaneous evolution of these two chemicals.
LambLion777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mickey: Enzymes, are specialized proteins, are absolutely necessary for the synthesis of DNA. Yet DNA is the very molecule that directs the production of enzymes within a cell. Therefore, enzyme molecules and DNA would have to evolve simultaneously or neither one would exist. Please explain, the simultaneous evolution of these two chemicals.
LambLion777 1 year ago
"The current scientific models of abiogensis are actually simply attempts to explain how life could have come about with out the causation or intervention of any agent."
You say this as though it is a critique of the hypothesis of abiogenesis? You are simply stating a definition of what science is. You also present that their are different hypotheses of abiogenesis, again as if this is some kind of criticism. In the absense of any evidence this is the way science will work.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
The problem here is your inablitly to accept that we don't know everything yet as if this is a fault of science. 500 years ago we knew even less. Look how far we have come. Look how far we have come in just the last 100 year or 10 years even. If it is possible to discover a working model of abiogenesis complete with lab experiments that produce examples of simple life then we get there. The fact that we aren't there already is not to say that the hypotheses are all wrong.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
actually, dr. jack szostak demonstrated how life could form from organic molecules without any ridiculous probablity..watch cdk007's video of Szostaks research on abiogensis.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
1 Corinthians 3:19-20
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20 - and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
8i680085 1 year ago
To say that no one really knows how life arose is a non-sequitor. Of course we don't, just as we don't have identities of all the pieces that made up the Earth at its formation. But we do know how it might have happened. It is certain that science will eventually produce life from non-life, probably in the not too distant future, Will it be exactly our life? No, probably not, but it will show all the properties of life, demonstrating that nature without the supernatural can explain life.
puncheex 1 year ago
I know your identical twin. What do you think about Suzan Mazur's scoop on the Altenberg 16 summit last year?
benthemiester 2 years ago
Macroevolution has not actually been observed, for obvious reasons. But there is an enormous amount of evidence pointing to the fact that macroevolution has actually occured. As for the evidence walk into a museum.
wtigersable 2 years ago
wtiger
Macroevolutin has not actually been observed for obvious reasons...
Never happens...jajaja
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
wtiger
Walk into a museum? so see what?
The horse evolution, where the first horse has 18 pairs of ribs, the next one 15, the next one 19 and the next one back to 18?, those fossils animals are not even related and are presented as evidence for the hallucination, come one, real evidences not lies.-
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
well, of course we cant agree onsomething we that happened without us being there.
Saying that cause its a 'theory' its flawed is rubbish. The theory of 'gravity' has different models, but we accept it as a fact.
Also im sick of people saying we cant make life ina lab... so whaty. The universe had billions of years, and trillions and trillions of planets to 'experiment' on.. All we need is the event to have occured ONCE, natural selection does the rest to diversify life
markgg1 2 years ago
and if human can not synthesize GOD must do it?
another argument of ignorance proving nothing. if is too complicated for today science that does not prove intelligent designer!
dulecare 2 years ago
On the other hand he's correct about multiple models. I did a wikipedia search on abiogenesis. The one that struck my interest was 'clay theory'
This is the theory that life evolved from clay.
I think this would be a good direction for creationists to head.
Clay theory, as well as other models, do not distract from the main ideas of biblical creationism.
Therefore I submit that creationists should work with these models to further their arguments.
philnoll 2 years ago
Well, he's wrong. Christians don't believe life came from non-life. The dust is arbitrary. It was God's living breath which gave Adam life. God has always been alive (at least according to Christian theology) am i right? Any christian takers?
philnoll 2 years ago
@video maker - Your a damn fool.
NoSz4 2 years ago
Repeatung all this stuff does NOT make you "brilliant". So dipshit...there are hundreds of scenarios showing how abiogenesis could occur. And this is "making fun of abiogenesis" I find it is the precise nature of science to propose many ways to generate the building blocks of life. Science USES the human mind to get to the explanations of life. God and religion FREEZE the human mind for stupified thoughtless propositions! I ask...do you want to USE your mind or FREEZE it!
junkyardpolester 2 years ago
Repeatung?
mrmikerotch 2 years ago
You almost make a good point right at the beginning. Even supposing a creator intervened in starting life on the planet this still doesn`t explain how he did it. Was it a magic trick? Or did he set up a number of chain reactions that eventually led to life? Of course if the 1st was true then science and knowledge would have no meaning and we may just as well not bother trying to discover anything. If the second was the case then whether a creator was there or not is irrelevant to the question.
paolo27th 2 years ago
Ok Also most models of abiogenisis would never say that the original life that formed had protiens. Peptides and mabey eventually RNA. You just have to have a self replicating molecule inside of a membrane of say fatty acids. You dont have to start off with the complex molecules like Protiens and DNA to eventually form them through the proccess of natural selection. Both Peptides and Fatty acids occur naturally.
Cloudff7yaoi 2 years ago
Yes u r right... RNA molecules can have catalistic properties, like proteins. Its very plausable that a string of RNA could self replicate... a sort of basic version of how bacteria replicates.
We only need this to have occured ONCE in nature... If in thr right conditions, you have a molecule that replicates infinates amounts of times, competiting with others in a energy rich warm environment and we have our first unicellular organisms, like bacteria which is likely to be first on earth
markgg1 2 years ago
Ok the reason why there is no consesus is that there are several ways this could feasibly happen. Of course they cant say where and how exactly how it happened. We WERE NOT THERE and short of a time machine all we can do is look at the evidence. I dont think anyone says that Abiogenisis is for sure how it happened. Abiogenisis just is a much better educated guess than say Creationism. On the other hand I would be willing to bet money that there will be abiogenisis in a lab within 40 years.
Cloudff7yaoi 2 years ago
Cloud
Every single code that we know of comes from a mind, to conclude that Genetic Code comes from an ID it´s rational and the observational data lead us to such a conclusion, in the other hand, if a bunch of expertise in biochemstry somehow in the next 40 years or so produce life, that will ONLY prove that ID to produce life, but as long as I can you, you´re not even enough to grasp this elementary concepts.
Have a nice one.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Crystals spontaneously artrange themselves in a pattern, so does ice crystals . They look 'desingned' under microscopes, but we know no intellect is behind it.
The information for life (DNA) is a string of nucleotides in a certain order. Neclotides arrange themselves in patterns in solution... Its not too hard to picture that the right sequence just occuring ONCE creates a self relplicating molecule. Once we have this molecule encaspulated in basic cell, natural selection does the rest.
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
Nucleotides arrange themselves in patterns in solution...
You should do more research on what DNA is all about, yours is just a simplistic misrepresentatin of the molecule really is.-
Watch the video once again.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Nucleotides do arrange themselves in chains in solution (to repeat myself)
A chain of nucleotides is what all life uses as information (DNA or RNA) We can see that mutaitons cause changes in the chains, causing a downstream change in the protein it makes. We can do this in the lab. and have done. this is the basis of evolution. We know for a fact that mutatiosn causes changes the trait of the organism. if the change causes an advantage, it survives.
Evolution in action.. amazing eh?
markgg1 2 years ago
@chuyaventuras: I know of no body of knowledge in physics, chemistry, engineering or information theory that requires a "mind" or some form of intelligence to create a code, which is, after all, just a mapping of one string of chemical elements to another. "Codes" are no more mysterious than any other biological structure; there are "codes" in the pattems of seeds in a pod, or in segments of an insect's body, or silicon crystals. Tell us why you think an ID is needful to create this code.
puncheex 1 year ago
sorry this is wrong, there is a difference between a pattern and information, informatino theory states that info can only come from a sender, and must originate mentally..
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666I I still know of no requirement that a code requires an intelligence to create. I see that there are at last four theories on how the genetic code was compiled, none requiring an intelligence. In information theory, a code is not information; it is a mapping of information from one media to another. A secret codebook, likewise, is not information in itself; it is worthless without an encoded message that needs to be decoded.
puncheex 1 year ago
zenith: Sorry about the examples; they are not codings, and I was in error in mentioning them. Nevertheless, I stand by the first part of the message, which I have just reinterated.
puncheex 1 year ago
Cloud
Please read: It will ONLY prove that ID is strictly required to produce life...
Bye
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but I like to make fun of science.
LOL! moron
dieyoubastards 2 years ago
get on with it, i have to go to lunch
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
You sounded very credible up til about 8 minutes in, when you started talking about complex proteins and cellular machinery. Early life wouldn't need these things. All it would need is RNA and the chemicals to copy itself. Not even a cell membrane, although that is actually the most feasible element in the model.
What this sounds like is an argument of irreducible complexity, which is pretty weak. Irreducibility exists because a creature eventually becomes dependent on existing structures.
Gesmehod 2 years ago
yea that's funny because a Ph.D. biologists emailed me about three weeks ago and asked if he could include that part in a book he is writing.
I think you don't know as much as you think you do. Keep studying. There is no known chemical process (without the complex organelles) that can cause RNA to replicate accurately.
psychetruth 2 years ago
Isn't it the process of replicating innacurately that leads to evolution, though?
Some innacuracies in RNA would've resulted in stronger chemical bonds, making it harder for them to be broken up by the environment. They'd then stand a better chance of replicating than the ones with weaker bonds, thus begins evolution. The RNA being copied accurately would result in the extinction of life, before it even started.
Gesmehod's right, though. The complex structures of modern cells weren't vital
Vehementi 2 years ago
the only thing that was vital, was a self replicating polymers. Once that happened, evolution did the rest.
Whilst we haven't synthed human or animal DNA, we have synthed artificial yeast DNA.
Vehementi 2 years ago
The inaccuracy is like 1 out of every 10 parts of information.
This would make reproduction completely impossible.
If a protein sequence has 2000 DNA letters every time that gene replicated 200 of them would be incorrect.
psychetruth 2 years ago
@psychetruth: Really? 10% error rate? I'd really like a good microbiologist's citation on that. I'd hate to think our protein machinery is that faulty. The know error rate for human DNA is 12x10^-8 for each base pair per generation, or about 175 per germ cell through it's entire lifetime..
puncheex 1 year ago
Gesmehod
Early life wouldn´t need complex proteins and cellular machinery...
That´s an hallucination or something you can observe, test, prove and demostrate?
No my friend you got to make you research, to make even things worse, cell are irreducible complex, don´t argue this, unless you believe the mouse trap can be used as a tie-clip.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
A mouse can't be used as a tie clip, but a piece of RNA can be used as a ribosome. Modern cells are irreducibly complex, but then so is a car. Ask an ancient Roman to build a car; won't happen. This is because technology builds off of itself in subtle ways, not *BAM* all at once.
Don't compare the first life to a cell, compare it to a virus. Viruses aren't technically alive but they're a good start.
Abiogenesis as a theory has a lot of bugs in it. But then so does gravity.
Gesmehod 2 years ago 3
Gesmehod
All the conjetures, assumptions and hallucinations that scientists made about the origin of life are ludicrous.-
First hallucination:Life began as a simple form....nooope, science has not a single iota fact to support the idea that life started on a simple way, that´s something you have to conjeture, suppose and hallucinate.-
Second hallucination:No propossed abiogenesis hypothesis has ever been proven to ocurre or have ocurred "in nature" all of them are MAN LAB MEDIA CONTROLLED
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
You seem to have a great understanding on the subject of the scientific method...
Any sources for that claim, what is the evidence that life started complex and fully formed? Where is the evidence for the "God made man out of clay and the woman out of a Rib" Hypothesis?
What do you want? A time machine? You demonstrate quite an ignorant stance. How, if not by replicating the conditions of early earth atmospehere are we explore the mechanisms?
IronyMan85 2 years ago
IronyMan
If evolution were true, we should expect to find real evidences of such event, but the observational data available nowadays is not in support of such a claim, rather supports a creation model, of course you´ll deny it by default.-
The fossil record has been, is and will be saying NOT to evolution.-
We don´t see any plant or animal turning into anything else but a variety of the same plant and animal, that´s what we observe, conjeture otherwise is not-science, is an hallucination
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
No, given the nature of fossilization it is impossible to find fossilized protocells and the likes. That's why it will stay an hypothesis, we are only able to find mechanism by which it could happen.
There is no scientific creation model, no mechanisms, no experiments, no predictions... no science... and because science does not comment on the supernatural I dismiss it by default, when it comes to research.
to be continued...
IronyMan85 2 years ago
Evidence for the supossed NO to evolution would be nice, don't forget to include some for genetic phylogeny, comparative morphology and anatomy, embryonal ontogensis and so on.
Speciation has been observed... I know you'll cry out that it is only micro... but since that has been debunked so often you might as well look it up yourself.
And yes we don't see anything turning into something else... just like we don't really notice ourselves aging, in comparsion to the day before.
IronyMan85 2 years ago
IronyMan
I know science DOES NOT comment in the supernatural, of course not, Science is what we can observe, test, by means of natural processes, I undestand that.-
Speciation, now that you mention it, Do you think that this very process of speciation that we observe in nature today could turn pakicetus into something else, then into something else and so forth and finally whales?, since you believe so, I do admire your capacity to imagine, hallucinate if you will.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Then your argument for a creation model was a philosophical one?
Sorry but looking at your comments your understanding seems to be relatively superficial.
Well you mentioned speciation, so I felt compelled to answer that.
What is your argument against it?
About the imagination bit, allow me to remind you that it is you who believes in magic...
IronyMan85 2 years ago
IronyMan
You think speciation, homology, ERVs, embryos, Fossil Record provides enough evidence to make a fairy tale come true?
Your magic is time, given 300 millions to a frog it can turn into the biodivesity around us, and you call it science and you feel too proud of it, again the fossil record by itself demolish any single ancestry-to-apes hypothesis, but you´re blind to any evidence that supports not your fairy tale, that´s all.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
You failed to present any evidence against it, nor did you answer any question.
Yet you think that your opinion/ignorance of the evidence is enough to make an argument against the synthetic theory of Evolution. Please don't embarass yourself.
Since time isn't magic... ah well forget it.
It is not only the fossile record but genetics comparative morphology/anatomy, etc.
And the last bit is a projection of your shortcomings on me.
Which evidence am I blind to you presented none?
IronyMan85 2 years ago
IronyMan
"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7).-
No matter how many explanations are given, punctualism, stable niches, or alike, the problem will remain for ever, no rational expalantion has ever given, all of them are biased, only to save the fairy tale from bankrupcy.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Quotemining does absolutely nothing to help your cause, quite the contrary it makes you look like a fool grasping for straws.
If you were unaware of that I highly suggest you post the quote into google, the first result you should get will lead you to the talkorigins quotemine faq it's quote #31.
"No matter how many explanations are given [...] no rational expalantion has ever given [...]"
Are you confused?
And here goes the conspiracy routine... booooring.
IronyMan85 2 years ago
IronyMan
Quotemining does absolutely nothing...
I bet you´re right, but if telling you the truly wonderfull fact that the fossil record has two important features:Stasis and Sudden appearance DOES NOT help my cause, what does?
Nooope, it is a truly wonderful fact observed in the fossil record by ALL Paleontologists, and that indeed really helps my cause, whether you admit it or not.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I never denied the fact. But you seem unaware of what a quotemine is.
Furthermore your answer indicates that you did not research that quote, or for that matter anything related to Stephen J. Gould, otherwise you would have come across the term of punctuated equilibrium.
Which with further research you might have found out takes into account these phases of stasis and sudden appearances (aka cladogenesis).
Though, I must admit I am courious as to how punctuated equilibrium helps your cause.
IronyMan85 2 years ago
IronyMan
How can you explain this?
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1.Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear.-
2. Sudden appearance. Fossils appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Remember, hallucinations are strictly prohibited.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
You are again quotemining... even worse you qoutemine a quotemine, which is as thick as it gets.
It is in the talkorigins faq quote #14
And as I explained in my previous post RESEARCH punctuated equilibrium. I am not going to spoonfeed you the Info in 500 char comments.
Remember... bearing false witness (like e.g quotemining) is a sin.
IronyMan85 2 years ago
IronyMan
So you´re fully satisfied with those given explanations, aren´t you?
Puntucated equilibrium is the modern version of Charly failed fairy tale of gradualism, but since the fossil record DID NOT conformed to Charly predictions, you know if my theory be true numberles intermediate varieties......Punctuated equilibrium came to save the fairy tale from humilliation, but do you notice that punctualism only make an evident falseness of gradualism. (Charly fairy tale)
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
So you do not actually understand the scientific method.
It is not about fairy tales... that would be the bible...duh.
What is your problem with punctuated equilibrium it is essentially a form of gradualism. You should have read the wikipedia article and should have come across that in the misconceptions part.
Next part you are arguing against transistionals?
You give P.E. way too much credit. No matter if gradualistic or punctuational, the phylogenetic relatedness would still be the same.
IronyMan85 2 years ago
well sudden appearnace mayhave occured because the animals developeed hard shells which would have fossilizes.. soft animals, which logic says must have existed before hard shelled animals would not fosslize. This most likely caused the 'cambrian' explosion.
Stasis I dont relaly know about, but I do know we have numerous animals closely simlar to humans in the record, such as homo habilis, neanderthal etc.. that show a logical progression to walking on two legs.
markgg1 2 years ago
Yes evolution is an observable event. There are experiments that have been going on for decades on evolving bacteria.
Of course you cannot witness complex life evolve as we only live for 70 years. It takes millions. But the geological and fossil record strongly suggest a progression from simpler forms to more complex forms of life.
A hallucination? how do you explain hobo habilis, neanderthal etc fossils? How do you explain the fact simpler fossils are older than complex,showing progresin
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
Do you think humans are more complex than horseshoe crabs?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Yes I do.. in terms of physiology and our nervous sytem. Our brain is the most complex entity known to us
why, do you? Whats the point?
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
If you believe so, so there is nothing I can do.
Trilobites used to had one of the most complex eyes in the history of life, saying that there is a progression in complexity is like saying that those Cambrian creatures were not.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
IM glad youbrought up trilobites. They are superb pieces of evidence for evolution as there are so many fossils. We can literally see how they evolved.. including the development of the eyes. Its likely that later forms of life evolved from these creatures.. including us.
Why dont you believe in evolution? Is it because it doesnt fit with your theology.? I cant see how you can not believe something that the evidence is strongly in favour of.
Im interested to know y?
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg
Well, if that´s what you believe as truth, so be it.
But, where did the trilobites come from?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I believe along with the vast majority of scientists. This 'belief' is based on observable evidence.
We have the evidence in front of us.. how can someone deny it unless they were deluded?
And I dont know what animal trilobites evolved from, Im not an expert on evolution..
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
They just appeared on the fossil record and that´s a truly wonderfull fact, sudden appearence and stasis it´s encouraged to be studied objetively, don´t you think?
And by the way, nobody knows where did the Cambrian marine creatures evolved from, they just appeared with no trace of ancestors, indicating something else other than magic evolution.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
well probably they evolved hard shells at some point. Soft bodies dont fossilize (obviously) so there 'appearnace' can be easily explained.
Ok, if evolution doesnt exist and its all rubbish, what is your explanation?
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
I bet you´re wrong, there´re fossils of jelly-fishes dated back to the Cambrian era, so your education has failed to give you the knowledge you need to debate properly, get a good education first if you want to comment on the tube, don´t make an utter fool of yourself.
If evolution does not exist....
See the evidences objetively and come to your own conclusions.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
i dont know the history of trilobites, my degree doesnt tocuh on that.. so my education hasnt failed me, as its not relevant to what I study. I do a medical course.
Look, you can say whatever about trilobites and pick at very specific things, but to reject the theory of evolution in my opinon is so absurd its almost perverse... It sickens me. I just cant see how any educated human being can reject something that is no blatantly obviously true.
ffs, why have u got a tailbone u moron?
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
Do you truly believe that the whole diversity of life on earth living and extinct descent somehow from a simple single living entity or whatever it was? Do you really believe this scientific hallucination?
You have got to kidding or gone insane, or maybe your education has deeply deceived you.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
markgg1
Why u got a tailbone?
Because nine muscles are atached to it and whitout it there would be no bone to attach them, and if there is no muscles my body can not perform important functins, plain and simple.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Oh man... scraping the barrel.
If your actually convinced by this than your welcome to it....
Ok, why do people get knee injuries a lot? (is it cause they are developed for walking on all fours)
why does the urethra pass throgh the prostate, a site for common infection.
why is our osophagus directly linked to the trachea meaning thousands die from choking every year.
Why do we get cancer?
Why dont neurons grow back in the brain and spinal cord?
Terrible 'design'
markgg1 2 years ago
The human body is riddled with problems, which suggests strongly that there wass no inteliigence behind it. Nature is an extremelly unorganised mess of organisms fighting over resources. 99.9% of animals are all extinct.
More questions for the god squad?
Why do we use oxygen, a highly toxic gas for respiration?
YOur most basic biochemict and biologist needs to send god an email on some changes he dhould make. If we are in his image, than god porbably died from choking on an apple.
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
I bet you´re right, a modern and sophisticated jet plane also is riddled with too many problems, so many that sometimes they crash to the ground or explode in airborne, that suggests strongly, indeed it proves that there was no intelligence behind its construction, I bet you´re right, I bet you.-
I see why you´re an atheist, you have serious, unsurmountable problems with your logic and rationality.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
lol
but god didnt design aeroplanes... humans did.
So are you saying that god has the same intellectual limitations that humans do?
THe funny thing is, aeroplanes are much more reliable than human bodies..
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg
Again showing a lack of logic and rationality...
You didn´t grasp the idea so far, did you?
read my comment one more time and try again...
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I read it very carefully.. YOu say that intelligence makes planes that some time explode, so thats the reason why intelligence makes humans that sometimes gets cancer
I respond by saying any docter could come up with loads of basic structural changes in the human body to improve it.
If god designed these imperfect bodies in his image, than that means he/she is not perfect. God by definition is perfect, so I can only conclude that thegod of christianity/islam/judaism does not exist.
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg
Again, lack of logic and rationality, try again, you´re wrong, that´s not what you asserted and I debunked, try again.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I see it like this...
if u have faith in god, fine, but you will always lose the debate of rationalizing gods existance,
Philosophy, biology, physics, geology, ethics, all say to me there is no god.
If you are convinced he does than fine, you are welcmome but dont expect to come here with arguments in the hope I will change my mind.
I got so many big questions that no religious person has ever satidfacturally answered for me... not a single one.
the free will one just pisses me of
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg
Nothing that you said in your last comment has anything to do with the lack of logic and rationality you showed, you´re fleeding away instead of getting closer to even have a clue what I told, read my comment back and try again
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I guess I dont get your point...try to make it simple for me.
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg1
I guess I don´t get your point
Thaaat is my point.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
read my posts again.
I think we dont understand each other.. I suppose someone who only believes in things based on a logical conclusion based on the material evidence in front of us, opposed to someone who believes in supernatural things based on a 2000 year old book are never going to agree on points of science.
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg
If giving you a so simple analogy you went clueless, Why should I expect you to understand the reality behind a material world?, so if you only believe in things based on logical conclusion, How come you did not come to the obvious conlclusion you should come?, I assume your logic it´s not enough to pick up what a meaningfull material evidence is all about.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
The aeroplane analogy just proves my point... Humans are not the result of grand intelligence, hence so many problems in our bodies. An aeroplane is designed by less than perfect beings (humans) hence why they have the occasioanl problem.
DOnt you see how your logic fails. You cant honestly say the human body is perfect. IT is riddled with trade offs, that any sane person can clearly see is the result of millions of years of evolutionary changes. I can point u to so much evidence in its favou
markgg1 2 years ago
markgg
Now I see, in my opinion there are some flaws on your logic which of course you didn´t pick up from the analogy and you´ll never will, of course according the principles of logic, but that aside.-
I´m just curios, what is your so much evidence in its favor
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
In favour of what evolution?
I could write a whole book on it to be honest, but Ill focus on a couple
The clearly redundant features in many many mammals like whales and bats. The fact we all share the same body plans,l excpet the proportions and sizes differ.
The insides of a human (which ive had the pleasure of looking inside) is opne big mess of organs stuffed into gaps, wires all over the place.. its so obviously not designed its perverse to think otherwise
markgg1 2 years ago