The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

So? It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close. It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer. I cover that in my article, by the way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

So? It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close. It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer. I cover that in my article, by the way.

The article he cited didn't support what he claimed anyway. What was generated was XNA and that was based off of DNA. The XNA did not replicate itself without the people running the lab forcing it to directly.

That is so far from self regenerating DNA it isn't even in the same universe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what is the God in the gaps fallacy precisely according to you?

What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".

No. Abiogenesis is a fairytale; therefore, it's false. And filling in the blanks of our knowledge about the common mechanisms of the natural world, objectively speaking, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a divine agency of origin.

There's no such thing as God in the gaps.

While there is no such thing as a fallacy of 'God of the Gaps' one can attribute what we do not know to the agency of God acting in the universe. Depending on the use of miraculous or providential means, what one is attributing can be either a miraculous intervention that science can never explain, or it can be a providential intervention that science can only describe how it happened but not who caused it.

So, my point is that 'God of the Gaps' is a valid answer to what we don't know at a philosophical level, though it does nothing for scientific inquiry. It certainly is not a fallacy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is very credible evidence that all species are directly related.

Define 'directly related', ass hat.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with a banana? It's around 50 percent.

Do you realize how much DNA you share with other mammals? The percentage (depending on the species) is much higher, up around 95 percent.

There is currently a show on FOX network that illustrates a lot of those points quite nicely. It was originally started under Carl Sagan, and is now hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and it's called Nova.

You should watch it sometime.

So? There's nothing startling or profound about that. On the contrary, I'd be flabbergasted if there were huge variations in the DNA among the various species of the same planet. Therefore, evolution!? You're unwittingly presupposing evolution in your premise. The exposure of this error commonly perpetrated on science by Darwinists is the central theme of my article linked in the above.

Objectively speaking, if the origin and speciation of life are a series of discrete creative events, not a series of evolutionary, chemical and biological processes of a common ancestry via strictly natural mechanisms of chance variation and fortuity over time: why would any designer not repeatedly employ the same baseline genetic motif as a matter of common function and economy?

You should think on that for sometime.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

So? It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close. It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer. I cover that in my article, by the way.

The article he cited didn't support what he claimed anyway. What was generated was XNA and that was based off of DNA. The XNA did not replicate itself without the people running the lab forcing it to directly.

That is so far from self regenerating DNA it isn't even in the same universe.

Ah! I consciously missed the details of his assertion, sort of mind-skimmed over them with what I know to have actually been accomplished in the background of my mind. Do you follow?

From my article:

I suspect that in your mind you have somehow muddled the difference between abiogenesis and biochemical engineering. Yes. In the laboratory, researchers have designed enzymatic RNA compounds that can affect a ligative production system that in its turn can fabricate self-replicating strands of RNA. [36] The initial stage of the procedure is front-loaded, not by the mechanism of natural selection, but by the preordained manipulations of a sentient being. The second stage of the procedure arguably entails the mechanism of natural selection, but only on the basis of recombinant mutation, not transmutation. Also, researchers have designed a ribozyme with catalytic properties that consists of only five nucleotides! [37] In vitro, they can even synthesis a series of oligonucleotides and assemble them into the entire genome of one bacterium, transplant it into the cytoplasm of another, and then step back and watch the transformed bacterium reproduce in accordance with the hereditary dictates of the synthetic genome. [38]

But these researchers did not devise these wonders from scratch, Bob. The basic chemical components were harvested from living cells; these were not the partially formed pieces of junk from any primordial soup. Indeed, the procedures themselves were based on the fundamentals of preexisting biotechnology, informed by the known processes of biological systems. And all of these things were achieved with a preordained outcome in mind, within pristine and insulated solutions simulating the environment and facilities of living cells.

In other words, they worked with preexistent paradigms and tools and materials suspended in midair, as it were, relative to origins. They can pound on the roof all they want, that's not going to resolve the clearly insurmountable problems of prebiotic logistics and polymerization for those notions that are predicated on the processes of accumulative chemistry. Whether they be strictly natural occurrences or not, the only reasonable explanation for the origins of the building's foundation and walls entails some kind of instantaneously synchronous event or another, at some point in time or another, as several abiogenists themselves have acknowledged in exasperation. So in spite of the hype—the political speak of research funding—none of this is new in the sense that it would lead to anything more than recycled adumbrations about the events that produced the extant biochemistry on which these researcher's endeavors are unequivocally based.

Are they going to back peddle to the very same monomeric dead ends that have already been thoroughly illustrated by others? Of course not. The problem of origins is not merely one of chemistry; it entails unobservable historical events, as the late Stanley Miller himself recognized:

Miller acknowledged that scientists may never know precisely where and when life emerged. "We're trying to discuss a historical event, which is very different from the usual kind of science, and so criteria and methods are very different," he remarked. —John Horgan, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, Broadway Books (1997, pg. 139)​

36. How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time -- ScienceDaily

37. Scientists create tiny RNA molecule with big implications for life's origins -- ScienceDaily

38. JCVI: Research / Projects / Synthetic Bacterial Genome / Press Release

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".

No. Abiogenesis is a fairytale; therefore, it's false. And filling in the blanks of our knowledge about the common mechanisms of the natural world, objectively speaking, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a divine agency of origin.

There's no such thing as God in the gaps.

While there is no such thing as a fallacy of 'God of the Gaps' one can attribute what we do not know to the agency of God acting in the universe. Depending on the use of miraculous or providential means, what one is attributing can be either a miraculous intervention that science can never explain, or it can be a providential intervention that science can only describe how it happened but not who caused it.

So, my point is that 'God of the Gaps' is a valid answer to what we don't know at a philosophical level, though it does nothing for scientific inquiry. It certainly is not a fallacy.

My bad, I meant the fallacy of God in the gaps. God in the gaps standing alone implies something unintended. Thank you for that clarification.

I follow you and agree with you wholeheartedly; however, I prefer the terms of the agency-mechanism dichotomy to make that point, primarily because the other has become a meme with a decidedly different connotation. You realize that my query concerning the alleged fallacy was merely intended to draw orogenicman out a bit more, not in any got ya fashion, but just so I could affirm the exact nature of his personal perspective.

 

[JakeStarkey]

faith based creation "science" is a relativist system.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No. Abiogenesis is a fairytale; therefore, it's false. And filling in the blanks of our knowledge about the common mechanisms of the natural world, objectively speaking, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a divine agency of origin.

There's no such thing as God in the gaps.

While there is no such thing as a fallacy of 'God of the Gaps' one can attribute what we do not know to the agency of God acting in the universe. Depending on the use of miraculous or providential means, what one is attributing can be either a miraculous intervention that science can never explain, or it can be a providential intervention that science can only describe how it happened but not who caused it.

So, my point is that 'God of the Gaps' is a valid answer to what we don't know at a philosophical level, though it does nothing for scientific inquiry. It certainly is not a fallacy.

My bad, I meant the fallacy of God in the gaps. God in the gaps standing alone implies something unintended. Thank you for that clarification.

I follow you and agree with you wholeheartedly; however, I prefer the terms of the agency-mechanism dichotomy to make that point, primarily because the other has become a meme with a decidedly different connotation. You realize that my query concerning the alleged fallacy was merely intended to draw orogenicman out a bit more, not in any got ya fashion, but just so I could affirm the exact nature of his personal perspective.

Lol, good luck with that.

Oro does not want reasonable discussion; he just wants to hate-bomb naïve Christian literalists with his memorized canned igtheistic bombast.

But if you can get him to actually discuss this with you; congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

So? It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close. It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer. I cover that in my article, by the way.

I never said it was abiogenesis. My point was that self-replicating molecules can be synthesized. And if stupid ole man can do it, then nature can do it. No gods required.

 

[orogenicman]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

So? It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close. It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer. I cover that in my article, by the way.

The article he cited didn't support what he claimed anyway. What was generated was XNA and that was based off of DNA. The XNA did not replicate itself without the people running the lab forcing it to directly.

That is so far from self regenerating DNA it isn't even in the same universe.

Let me guess. You didn't read the paper, did you?

 

[orogenicman]

While there is no such thing as a fallacy of 'God of the Gaps' one can attribute what we do not know to the agency of God acting in the universe. Depending on the use of miraculous or providential means, what one is attributing can be either a miraculous intervention that science can never explain, or it can be a providential intervention that science can only describe how it happened but not who caused it.

So, my point is that 'God of the Gaps' is a valid answer to what we don't know at a philosophical level, though it does nothing for scientific inquiry. It certainly is not a fallacy.

My bad, I meant the fallacy of God in the gaps. God in the gaps standing alone implies something unintended. Thank you for that clarification.

I follow you and agree with you wholeheartedly; however, I prefer the terms of the agency-mechanism dichotomy to make that point, primarily because the other has become a meme with a decidedly different connotation. You realize that my query concerning the alleged fallacy was merely intended to draw orogenicman out a bit more, not in any got ya fashion, but just so I could affirm the exact nature of his personal perspective.

Lol, good luck with that.

Oro does not want reasonable discussion; he just wants to hate-bomb naïve Christian literalists with his memorized canned igtheistic bombast.

But if you can get him to actually discuss this with you; congratulations.

You'll have to point out where I ever said I hate Christians. Otherwise you owe me an apology and should ask your god for forgiveness for bearing false witness against me.

 

[orogenicman]

What it always has been, an attempt to claim God in every gap in our knowledge. Example, "We don't know how life began - therefore God".

No. Abiogenesis is a fairytale; therefore, it's false. And filling in the blanks of our knowledge about the common mechanisms of the natural world, objectively speaking, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a divine agency of origin.

There's no such thing as God in the gaps.

While there is no such thing as a fallacy of 'God of the Gaps' one can attribute what we do not know to the agency of God acting in the universe. Depending on the use of miraculous or providential means, what one is attributing can be either a miraculous intervention that science can never explain, or it can be a providential intervention that science can only describe how it happened but not who caused it.

So, my point is that 'God of the Gaps' is a valid answer to what we don't know at a philosophical level, though it does nothing for scientific inquiry. It certainly is not a fallacy.

No sir. The god of the gaps argument is never a valid explanation because it leads to the slippery slope fallacy, and because in order to make a god of the gaps argument, one has to first prove the existence of god. And no one can do that, not you, not me. You take the least likely explanation for the unknown and elevate it based on personal bias only. We used to ascribe lightning to the gods but we don't do that any more. Why? Because we have a better explanation that doesn't require the intervention of Thor, Zeus, or any other angry alpha male figure.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My bad, I meant the fallacy of God in the gaps. God in the gaps standing alone implies something unintended. Thank you for that clarification.

I follow you and agree with you wholeheartedly; however, I prefer the terms of the agency-mechanism dichotomy to make that point, primarily because the other has become a meme with a decidedly different connotation. You realize that my query concerning the alleged fallacy was merely intended to draw orogenicman out a bit more, not in any got ya fashion, but just so I could affirm the exact nature of his personal perspective.

Lol, good luck with that.

Oro does not want reasonable discussion; he just wants to hate-bomb naïve Christian literalists with his memorized canned igtheistic bombast.

But if you can get him to actually discuss this with you; congratulations.

You'll have to point out where I ever said I hate Christians. Otherwise you owe me an apology and should ask your god for forgiveness for bearing false witness against me.

You say it with your hostile and contemptuous behavior toward Christians. A clever hater like you never entirely shows his cards.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No. Abiogenesis is a fairytale; therefore, it's false. And filling in the blanks of our knowledge about the common mechanisms of the natural world, objectively speaking, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a divine agency of origin.

There's no such thing as God in the gaps.

While there is no such thing as a fallacy of 'God of the Gaps' one can attribute what we do not know to the agency of God acting in the universe. Depending on the use of miraculous or providential means, what one is attributing can be either a miraculous intervention that science can never explain, or it can be a providential intervention that science can only describe how it happened but not who caused it.

So, my point is that 'God of the Gaps' is a valid answer to what we don't know at a philosophical level, though it does nothing for scientific inquiry. It certainly is not a fallacy.

No sir. The god of the gaps argument is never a valid explanation because it leads to the slippery slope fallacy, ...

No, it does not, and you make that fallacious argument by asserting it does, lol.

and because in order to make a god of the gaps argument, one has to first prove the existence of god. ...

That has been done for the last 2,000 years. It's no one else's fault that you refuse to understand these arguments other than your own fault.

And no one can do that, not you, not me.

Maybe that is why you cant understand the arguments; you think it impossible to prove before you even look. That is called 'Closed Mindedness' and 'Confirmation Bias'.

You take the least likely explanation for the unknown and elevate it based on personal bias only.

'Least likely'? According to you it is impossible! Lol, you should really learn how to state your own position more clearly.

We used to ascribe lightning to the gods but we don't do that any more.

No, *we* don't. There is no 'gods' only a Creator and yes, He is responsible for lightning, whether you can grasp that concept or not.

Why? Because we have a better explanation that doesn't require the intervention of Thor, Zeus, or any other angry alpha male figure.

Or fantasy stories.

The Creator is not magic, fantasy or any of that other bullshit.

The Creator is real and your attempts at muddying the waters will not prevail.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So? It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close. It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer. I cover that in my article, by the way.

The article he cited didn't support what he claimed anyway. What was generated was XNA and that was based off of DNA. The XNA did not replicate itself without the people running the lab forcing it to directly.

That is so far from self regenerating DNA it isn't even in the same universe.

Let me guess. You didn't read the paper, did you?

I read the article and I quoted directly from it. All the adaptations were FORCED by the experimenters.

lol

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...gcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_us_ot_w#

First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.

The team—led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology—then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.

This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity.

Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube.

They have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution.

It is hilarious that I quote directly from the article and you say I didn't even read it.

It is apparent that you merely skimmed it off a Google search and copied the link without having read it yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

The article he cited didn't support what he claimed anyway. What was generated was XNA and that was based off of DNA. The XNA did not replicate itself without the people running the lab forcing it to directly.

That is so far from self regenerating DNA it isn't even in the same universe.

Let me guess. You didn't read the paper, did you?

I read the article and I quoted directly from it. All the adaptations were FORCED by the experimenters.

lol

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

First, researchers made XNA building blocks to six different genetic systems by replacing the natural sugar component of DNA with one of six different polymers, synthetic chemical compounds.

The team—led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology—then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.

This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity.

Last, the team determined that HNA, one of the six XNA polymers, could respond to selective pressure in a test tube.

They have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

(ahem) But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution.

It is hilarious that I quote directly from the article and you say I didn't even read it.

It is apparent that you merely skimmed it off a Google search and copied the link without having read it yourself.

(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said."

 

[JimBowie1958]

Let me guess. You didn't read the paper, did you?

I read the article and I quoted directly from it. All the adaptations were FORCED by the experimenters.

lol

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

They have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

(ahem) But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution.

It is hilarious that I quote directly from the article and you say I didn't even read it.

It is apparent that you merely skimmed it off a Google search and copied the link without having read it yourself.

(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said."

Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492

Actually, they have, you just have to be willing to hear the truth.

Simple amino acids can be formed when various chemicals come into contact with each other, but what turns them into DNA and RNA is electricity (which occurs naturally in clouds from the ions rubbing against one another).

Form DNA and RNA, and you get life.

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

And again, no they have not.

Don't get me wrong; I think one day we will be able to do this. I do not think it is something that is 'magical' nor was it a miracle at life's inception.

I just think it is an enormously complex process that we wont divine for another century, frankly.

 

[orogenicman]

I read the article and I quoted directly from it. All the adaptations were FORCED by the experimenters.

lol

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

They have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.


Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution.

It is hilarious that I quote directly from the article and you say I didn't even read it.

It is apparent that you merely skimmed it off a Google search and copied the link without having read it yourself.

(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said."

Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

And again, no they have not.

You are confused:

The team—led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology—then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.
This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said."

Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492



And again, no they have not.

You are confused:

The team—led by Vitor Pinheiro of the U.K.'s Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology—then evolved enzymes, called polymerases, that can make XNA from DNA, and others that can change XNA back into DNA.
This copying and translating ability allowed for genetic sequences to be copied and passed down again and again—artificial heredity.

No, you are skipping important information.

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

For instance, "it's possible that life didn't begin with DNA and proteins like we see today—it may have begun with something much, much simpler," he said.

Bah, they did not create self-generating DNA, no matter how you spin it, Oro.

 

[orogenicman]

Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492



And again, no they have not.

You are confused:

No, you are skipping important information.

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

For instance, "it's possible that life didn't begin with DNA and proteins like we see today—it may have begun with something much, much simpler," he said.

Bah, they did not create self-generating DNA, no matter how you spin it, Oro.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. So don't even try floating there.

By the way, the word is "metaphysical", not "metapysical".