Any Evolution-believing Person care to Explain Origin of Life?

[SpidermanTuba]

Why are you so obtuse?

There are plenty of scientists supporting "ID".

No, there aren't actually. There's like 4. And they have only succeeded in published a handful of papers at conferences. None in full-fledged peer reviewed journals.

You have Life began by accident, and somehow IMPROVES itself if left alone - which simply is just too unlikely.

Science is not you stating something it becoming true.

You have no way of measureing the likelihood of life forming at at least one place in the Universe within the period of time from the big bang to to formation of life on Earth - about 10 billion years. Therefore, you have no quatifiable evidence with which to back your assert that it is unlikely. HOW unlikely is it? You can't say.

You have ID which says Look at the intricate workings of the universe - There simply is not enough faith to believe this happened by accident.

No, ID only talks about life, not the entire Universe.

 

[manu1959]

Let's test your knowledge of ID.

If ID is wrong, what quantifiable evidence would show this?

If ID is right, what quantifiable evidence would show this?

when you die you will see god

when you die you won't see god

you hate christmas huh...having to wait to open the presents just bunches up your panties huh?....oh ya i forgot you don't celebrate christmas as that would be hypocritcal...as you don't belive in christ why the hell would you celebrate christmas....how was work that day?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Textbook to read about the unproven theory of evolution: $60

What theories of science has been proven, in your opinion?

 

[Abbey Normal]

What theories of science has been proven, in your opinion?

My BS detector is registering big time here, but on the off chance this is a sincere question, I will suggest you can start by reading up on Newton or Einstein.

 

[deaddude]

how convient for science to create a system that will validate their ideas and in validate all other ideas...

how long was a day before the big bang occured? if there was no sun and no earth to spin then there was no day as you know it so days were not of a finite lenght.

believing in the big bang or soup to man takes faith because neither is proveable and therfore are not science they are creationism

Science does not ask for proof merely the ability to be tested and possibly disproven. The big bang theory is supported by the discovery of the red shift. Primordial soup theory is supported by numerous experiments.

Genesis is also supported, but by religous evidence, one does not test God, it even says so in the Bible. it is not testable but no less viable as a possibility. However it is not science nor should it try to be, to try and make it a science is to eliminate the element of faith.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

how convient for science to create a system that will validate their ideas and in validate all other ideas...

Any idea which is rigorously tested through observation will be accepted by scientists.

Are you suggesting we modify science to include ideas which are not testable? What would be the point?

how long was a day before the big bang occured?
if there was no sun and no earth to spin then there was no day as you know it so days were not of a finite lenght.

So it took God 6 infinitely long days to create the Earth? What is 6 times infinity? You're not too good with math, are you?

believing in the big bang or soup to man takes faith because neither is proveable and therfore are not science they are creationism

The Big Bang is supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence, namely, the observed fact that the further away something is, the faster it is moving away from us. This is not "creationism" - this is a theory which is testable and has in fact been tested.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

when you die you will see god

when you die you won't see god

This is why ID is not a scientific theory. There is no way to gather evidence, which can be communicated to other scientists, which would either show it to be true or not.

Furthermore, I fail to see what it has to do with God. ID doesn not even propose that a God must exist. Further, evolution does not propose that a God must not exist.

you hate christmas huh...having to wait to open the presents just bunches up your panties huh?....oh ya i forgot you don't celebrate christmas as that would be hypocritcal...as you don't belive in christ why the hell would you celebrate christmas....how was work that day?

WTF are you talking about? Take your meds.

 

[manu1959]

Are you telling me you were never vaccinated as a child? If you weren't, I highly recommend it.

The availability of food is also an important factor. In modern day society we can transport a variety of foods quickly, so nutritional malnourishment is rare in industrialized nations.

One reason you didn't get sick as a child is that modern day children are more likely to be getting all the vitamins and minerals they need than in older days.

You excample is also purely anecdotal. The exception does not prove the rule.

which shot should I have gotten to make me taller?

i did not grow up in today’s society so i am not a modern day child?

how do the Sudanese that live in poverty get so tall? or the Zulu warriors

my example is provable scientific evidence and i just gave you two others

you still haven't proved your original claim that "height is not genetic"

all that you have proved to me so far is that you are arrogant, self important, close minded and stubborn…..you have biology this year huh?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

My BS detector is registering big time here, but on the off chance this is a sincere question, I will suggest you can start by reading up on Newton or Einstein.

As a graduate student in physics, I can assure you that I have read up on plenty of Newton and Einstein.

I can also assure you that Newton's theories have been shown to be correct only in special circumstances. In fact, the entire point of Einstein's theories of Relativity was to develop a theory which was correct over a broader range of circumstances, like high velocity, high mass situations.

Furthermore, I can also assure you that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is far from being proven. In fact, the biggest research group in our department is currently involved in testing his theories by attempting to observe gravity waves - which are predicted by his theory, but have never been observed due to their being very weak signals that require very sensitive instruments to detect.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you still haven't proved your original claim that "height is not genetic"

I never said height wasn't genetic. I said that the recent trend of people being taller was due largely to health related things.

Ask any M.D. why people are taller now than they were 150 years ago. They'll tell you pretty much what I've told you.


Or is it that you distrust anyone with a post-baccalaureate education?

 

[Abbey Normal]

As a graduate student in physics, I can assure you that I have read up on plenty of Newton and Einstein.

I can also assure you that Newton's theories have been shown to be correct only in special circumstances. In fact, the entire point of Einstein's theories of Relativity was to develop a theory which was correct over a broader range of circumstances, like high velocity, high mass situations.

Furthermore, I can also assure you that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is far from being proven. In fact, the biggest research group in our department is currently involved in testing his theories by attempting to observe gravity waves - which are predicted by his theory, but have never been observed due to their being very weak signals that require very sensitive instruments to detect.

You are so reassuring. Or is that pompous and condescending? Anyway, with all this so-called science being unproven and all, it sounds like ID would fit right into a high school science curriculum just fine.

 

[-Cp]

No, I cant of the top of my head. Can explain why they all could not have just happened to be Left-handed. There is a very large amount of chance to this theory. The neccesary components for life as we know it are pretty common, however it is the fact that you need them to combine in a very peculiar way that makes life so amazing and so rare.

There are over 2000 kinds of amino acids - only 20 are used in life. The atoms that make up each amino acid are assembled in two basic shapes - left handed and right handed.

If you compare them to the human hands - each are identical to each other but different at the same time - comparing to a human hand, each has four fingers, but the thumb of the right hand is on the right and the thumb of the left hand is on the left - they're mirrors of each other.

Objects that have handedness are said to be chiral - the greek word for hand.

Handedness is an important concept as all amino acids that make up proteins in living things are all 100% left-handed - right hand amino acids are never found in proteins. If you had a protein with even one right-handed amino acid, the entire function of the protien would be lost.

This iis an issue many scientists admit they don't know - for sure - could've happened:

<blockquote><i>Many of life's chemicals come in two forms, "Left-handed" and "right-handed". Life requires polymers with all the building blocks having the same "handedness" (homochirality)--proteins have only "left-handed" amino acids..... But ordinary undirected chemistry, as is the hypothetical primordial soup, would product equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules, called racemates.</i>
-Sarfati, J. In Six Days, p.82

<i>This is a very puzzling fact .... All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and plants from higher organisms and from very simple organisms--bacteria, molds, even viruses--are found to have been made of L-amino [Left-handed] acids"</i>
-Pauling, L., General Chemistry Textbook, Third Edition,. p. 774</blockquote>

The Miller experiment, which I assume you've been alluding to -where Muller-Urey, in the early 1950's, created amino acids in a controlled - oxygen free - environment. What textbooks fail to mention is how that experiment would've created both right and left-handed amino acids which would be detrimental to life as the natural tendacy is for both left- and right-handed amino acids to bond together. Scientists still do now know why biological proteins use only left-handed amino acids.

<blockquote><i>The reason for this choice [only left-handed amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continuous debate.</i>
-Shapiro, R., Origins of Life p. 86

<i>So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated. Yet the Millery-Urey experiment continues to be used as an icon of evolution, because nothing better has turned up. Instead of being told the truth, we are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the origin of life.</i>
-Wells, J., Icons of Evolution p. 24</blockquote>

It's unfortunate that textbooks claim the Miller experiment as "proof" as it did NOT succeed in creating the building blocks of life (only left-handed amino acids). Here's an example from a biology textbook which dupes students into thinking that Miller succeeded:

<blockquote><i>By recreating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen and methane) and passing an electric spark (lightning) through the mixture, Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously.</I>
-Miller, K., and Levine, J., Biology, 2000</blockquote>

Notice they use the word "proved"? The only thing they proved is that life could not have begun in such conditions. Additionally, the textbook completely ignores other evidence that shows the atmosphere has always contained oxygen. Moreover, it ignores that Miller-Urey got it wrong anyways as what they produced was a mixture of left and right-handedd amino acids.

All experiements since then have failed to product even a single biological protein by purely natural processes.

 

[-Cp]

As a graduate student in physics, I can assure you that I have read up on plenty of Newton and Einstein.

I can also assure you that Newton's theories have been shown to be correct only in special circumstances. In fact, the entire point of Einstein's theories of Relativity was to develop a theory which was correct over a broader range of circumstances, like high velocity, high mass situations.

Furthermore, I can also assure you that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is far from being proven. In fact, the biggest research group in our department is currently involved in testing his theories by attempting to observe gravity waves - which are predicted by his theory, but have never been observed due to their being very weak signals that require very sensitive instruments to detect.

Isn't it just sad when cousins get married?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You are so reassuring. Or is that pompous and condescending? Anyway, with all this so-called science being unproven and all, it sounds like ID would fit right into a high school science curriculum just fine.

Except that ID isn't testable. Hence not science. You cannot design an experiment or list a set of observations which would either help support ID or which would disprove it. On the other hand, evolution is testable through observation, as it makes specific predictions about what kinds of fossils will be found and what kind will not be found.

What does ID predict, and what way would we have of testing its predictions?

I was merely using the word "prove" in the way in which you use it. By your definition, something is only proven when there is no doubt possible whatsoever that it could be wrong. The definition used by science is that something is proven when it is supported by a preponderance of evidence. I was showing that under your definition of "proof", none of science has been proven.

Evolution is supported by evidence in the fossil record, evidence which creationists simply choose to ignore.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There are over 2000 kinds of amino acids - only 20 are used in life. The atoms that make up each amino acid are assembled in two basic shapes - left handed and right handed.

If you compare them to the human hands - each are identical to each other but different at the same time - comparing to a human hand, each has four fingers, but the thumb of the right hand is on the right and the thumb of the left hand is on the left - they're mirrors of each other.

Objects that have handedness are said to be chiral - the greek word for hand.

Handedness is an important concept as all amino acids that make up proteins in living things are all 100% left-handed - right hand amino acids are never found in proteins. If you had a protein with even one right-handed amino acid, the entire function of the protien would be lost.

This iis an issue many scientists admit they don't know - for sure - could've happened:

<blockquote><i>Many of life's chemicals come in two forms, "Left-handed" and "right-handed". Life requires polymers with all the building blocks having the same "handedness" (homochirality)--proteins have only "left-handed" amino acids..... But ordinary undirected chemistry, as is the hypothetical primordial soup, would product equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules, called racemates.</i>
-Sarfati, J. In Six Days, p.82

<i>This is a very puzzling fact .... All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and plants from higher organisms and from very simple organisms--bacteria, molds, even viruses--are found to have been made of L-amino [Left-handed] acids"</i>
-Pauling, L., General Chemistry Textbook, Third Edition,. p. 774</blockquote>

The Miller experiment, which I assume you've been alluding to -where Muller-Urey, in the early 1950's, created amino acids in a controlled - oxygen free - environment. What textbooks fail to mention is how that experiment would've created both right and left-handed amino acids which would be detrimental to life as the natural tendacy is for both left- and right-handed amino acids to bond together. Scientists still do now know why biological proteins use only left-handed amino acids.

<blockquote><i>The reason for this choice [only left-handed amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continuous debate.</i>
-Shapiro, R., Origins of Life p. 86

<i>So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated. Yet the Millery-Urey experiment continues to be used as an icon of evolution, because nothing better has turned up. Instead of being told the truth, we are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the origin of life.</i>
-Wells, J., Icons of Evolution p. 24</blockquote>

It's unfortunate that textbooks claim the Miller experiment as "proof" as it did NOT succeed in creating the building blocks of life (only left-handed amino acids). Here's an example from a biology textbook which dupes students into thinking that Miller succeeded:

<blockquote><i>By recreating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen and methane) and passing an electric spark (lightning) through the mixture, Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously.</I>
-Miller, K., and Levine, J., Biology, 2000</blockquote>

Notice they use the word "proved"? The only thing they proved is that life could not have begun in such conditions. Additionally, the textbook completely ignores other evidence that shows the atmosphere has always contained oxygen. Moreover, it ignores that Miller-Urey got it wrong anyways as what they produced was a mixture of left and right-handedd amino acids.

All experiements since then have failed to product even a single biological protein by purely natural processes.

What is your point? That science has yet to have a full and complete explanation for the origins of the first life form? OK, and so what? Do you have a point to make?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Isn't it just sad when cousins get married?

?

 

[GotZoom]

So, in your assuring, intellectual wisdom spidey, answer this question for me.

What must happen for X to be 100% proven? Must you see it? Touch it? Feel it?

What are the requirements for something to be factual?

 

[-Cp]

?

Thanks for proving my point - it's okay, you're from Louisiana, we understand...

 

[manu1959]

I never said height wasn't genetic. I said that the recent trend of people being taller was due largely to health related things.

Ask any M.D. why people are taller now than they were 150 years ago. They'll tell you pretty much what I've told you.


Or is it that you distrust anyone with a post-baccalaureate education?

your ability to go to class and take tests is laudable and has nothing to do with my trust....my trust is earned through respect .... post 46 proves you are a liar .... a self proclaimed well eduated liar with a need to prove they know what they know but a liar none the less ....

 

[Abbey Normal]

On the other hand, evolution is testable through observation, as it makes specific predictions about what kinds of fossils will be found and what kind will not be found.

I do not claim to be an evolution expert, so I can't "assure you", but where are all the transitional form fossils to support this observable theory?