Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[Grumblenuts]

Not magic, but by a supernatural God.

 

[james bond]

Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?

I already explained Genesis.

 

[james bond]

"At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."

Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!

Heh. We talked about it already. It starts with soil carbon. That should be the key. What else was added (by God) to that chemical process?

Heh. Heh heh.

Search results for query: soil carbon

1. [IMG alt="james bond"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/55/55937.jpg?1445126012[/IMG]
   Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?
   Heh. We talked about it already. It starts with soil carbon.

Don't look now, lazy bones, but psst, hint, hint, pants on fire..

Your rear end is on fire and will be for a long time.

Science backs up the Bible once again as carbon is one of the most important elements in life. OTOH, you and Hollie couldn't answer what does abiogenesis base itself on?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your rear end is on fire and will be for a long time.

And why would that be? Sorry, I'm not the one banging off the walls, reflexively asserting nonsense here..

Science backs up the Bible once again as carbon is one of the most important elements in life.

What? Was someone here arguing against the importance of carbon for some reason? You best gather your shit and get some rest, son.

 

[Papageorgio]

I didn't address that at all. But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong. That can be said to be the root of evolution. A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process. Most of those have little effect. Many have detrimental effects. And some provide advantages to that life form.

Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong. The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.

There are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe. So guess what?
"Impossible." No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power. More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body? A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.

Ah, yes. The standard ID'iot creationist ''it's impossible'', nonsense.

I would be hesitant to cite creationer loons as reliable sources for science matters.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.




So tell more about the creationer nonsense and the odds against biological evolution.

The obvious flaw with the creation claim against biological evolution tgat “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationer argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites.

Firstly, the silly religioner “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the religioner ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously,

As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.

Great article, you proved that two scientists can disagree and can argue their points. It doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?

I already explained Genesis.

It's very simple, James. "Genesis" with a capital G is a Bible term - you know, something for those stuck dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage. All the poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically.

Meanwhile, from Wiktionary, here are the roots of the word

"abiogenesis" (a-bio-genesis)

"a" = "without"
"bio" = "life"
"genesis" = "origin", "source", "beginning"

A beginning of life from none. Wikipedia yields "informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds"

OMG, look! There it is! "organic compounds"! Them damned Atheists are badmouthing carbon again, I just know it... Help!

 

[Grumblenuts]

you and @Hollie couldn't answer what does abiogenesis base itself on?

Continuing...

Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]

The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today.[13] It primarily uses tools from biology, chemistry, and geophysics,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three:[15] more specifically, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (cell membranes), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world,[17] although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.

Ready to try it without the walker now or still too nervous?

 

[Grumblenuts]

What I sense missing from the above is focus upon larger electromagnetic field interactions, stemming from Van der Waals forces of course, but perhaps other field interactions that have been overlooked as potential contributors. We're clearly considering a process employing sequential logic, as opposed to the combinational logic idiotically presumed necessary by the OP and ChemEngineer. Large molecules turning, twisting, folding, arranging themselves at some distance prior to combining..

 

[JoeB131]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

The big bang and evolution are two different theories...

Try again.

 

[JoeB131]

Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?

It's more scientific than thinking a Magic Sky Fairy made the universe in six days and made a man out of clay.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Basically *EVOLUTION* means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival. Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.

"It's better that way." *Science*, 1850's style. NO biochemistry necessary. NO statistical analysis of polypeptide synthesis.

Now let us suppose that this "developer" of a "trait" is a homosexual, or otherwise does not breed, or that it is killed by a predator or competitor before passing on its *advantage*. Where does your tautology go then?

Then the trait dies off as a dead line unless it is in other members who will survive and reproduce. Obviously, changes in homosexual populations would be a no harm no foul in most instances as far as evolution is concerned.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Making a woman from a guy's rib was a bit more imaginative.. Still pretty desperate and gross sounding though, not to mention sexist.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----

You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built. One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years. It's always 1 in 20. Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body. "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed. Equal to 0. No different from 0. Impossible is the word.
Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power." Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450? Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?

Oh brother---I dumbed down the basics of evolution to its simpliest goals of it is always attempting to improve an organisms in one tiny way and you try to over complicate things.

Evolution occurs much faster than you realize--we went from wolf to tiny yorkie in just a few thousand years or so? It did not occur over night---it was one change at time generation after generation.

Each generation is slightly different than its parents---successful and unsuccessful changes will be passed to the next generation especially when the breeding population is smaller much quicker than in a larger population where finding both parents to have the trait needed to be pass down more unlikely. In times of stress, populations go down in size, creating fewer breeding partners increasing these odds drastically. This smaller population survives when the rest of the population hadn't so any traits they have have will be passed down with higher probably that whatever the trait was that kept these fewer organisms alive will passed to the next generation.

CHANGE is always and I do mean always present and occurring in one generation to the next. Subtle change that is tried out...........most of the time this change isn't used and thusly isn't locked into the gene pool because if you remember your basic of genetics--genes are pass down easier when both parents share the same gene either dominantly or recessively. it isn't till people with the same gene which usually means an isolated or smaller breeding group start repeatedly interbreeding that these gene changes are locked in quicker.

And sorry dear but your whole babbling about amino acids 1 in 20 chance thing is nonsense hence the imperfect copies of sequencing in our mRNA and I suspect radiation from the sun and other factors that affect our amino acids as well.

 

[JoeB131]

Making a woman from a guy's rib was a bit more imaginative.. Still pretty desperate and gross sounding though, not to mention sexist.

The question is, what was he doing with that dick before Yahweh made a woman to stick it into?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Goats? Tree knots?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

The big bang and evolution are two different theories...

Try again.

No shit Sherlock. Have a 5 year old explain the OP to you.

 

[JoeB131]

No shit Sherlock. Have a 5 year old explain the OP to you.

Actually, even a five year old would be confused by your statement.

Five year olds realize dinosaurs were a thing.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No shit Sherlock. Have a 5 year old explain the OP to you.

Actually, even a five year old would be confused by your statement.

Five year olds realize dinosaurs were a thing.

Even a 5 year old could fabricate a better strawman.

 

[JoeB131]

Even a 5 year old could fabricate a better strawman.

Well, uh, no.

The problem you guys have is that if you really believe what the bible says about creation (as opposed to the creation myths of all the other religions, which are equally silly.) then how do you explain dinosaurs?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Even a 5 year old could fabricate a better strawman.

Well, uh, no.

The problem you guys have is that if you really believe what the bible says about creation (as opposed to the creation myths of all the other religions, which are equally silly.) then how do you explain dinosaurs?

Either answer the OP or get reported.
But you can’t , so you go into childish personal attacks, cuz dats science.