Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

its not my position... we should care about or I have been promoting. I was simply informing Stu and others that we have no proof or even pathway that life evolved from non life.

Stu started restating his position and now pretends he did not really mean he had proof of life from non life.

So your and stu may now believe are close to discovering a pathway in which non life came from life here on earth... OK fine... I just pointed out that some nobel prize winners do not agree with your assessment.
And that even Miller of Miller Urey seemed to disagree, 40 years into his research.

 

finally, I would like to point out Beta... you were the one who said there is a clear path.

It was not me who was saying a pathway was unattainable. I said there is no proof of any pathway and then to illustrate the point I stated some scientists believe there was not enough time for life to evolve from inorganic matter on earth.


So my point is there is no proof we evolved from inorganic matter by random chance. If you agree we have no argument.

 

jem, I am only informing you that there is a pathway (yet to be discovered) and that we have made a lot of progress since Urey-Miller. Whoever said there isn't enough time for life to evolve obviously doesn't know what they're talking about because we're here. Additionally, the fact that we know the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids, nucleic bases, and other organic compounds randomly and spontaneously self-construct given the right environments proves that life can definitely arise from non-life. We just have figure out exactly how it happened.

I'd have to strongly disagree. Here are just some of the progress we've made to discover how the building blocks of life could have formed themselves from non-organic matter and gotten the process of biological evolution off the ground.

Note key words (I had them italicized) "spontaneously", "spontaneous", "self-organization and self-replication", "self-assembly", and "self-assembling".

==================

An article in Discover Magazine points to research by the Miller group indicating the formation of seven different amino acids and 11 types of nucleobases in ice when ammonia and cyanide were left in a freezer from 1972–1997. This article also describes research by Christof Biebricher showing the formation of RNA molecules 400 bases long under freezing conditions using an RNA template, a single-strand chain of RNA that guides the formation of a new strand of RNA. As that new RNA strand grows, it adheres to the template.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Levy, M.; Miller, S. L.; Brinton, K.; Bada, J. L. (June 2000). "Prebiotic synthesis of adenine and amino acids under Europa-like conditions". Icarus 145 (2): 609–13.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/orig/2005/00000035/00000005/00005009#aff_1

========================

Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a ratio of Carbon-13 (13C) to Carbon-12 (12C) of about −5.5 (in units of δ13C), where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a δ13C of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.

Mojzis, S. J. et al. (1996). "Evidence for life on earth before 3,800 million years ago". Nature 384 (6604): 55–9.

=========================

A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.

Miller, Stanley L. (1953). "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions". Science 117 (3046): 528–9.

===========================

Apart from the Miller–Urey experiment, the next most important step in research on prebiotic organic synthesis was the demonstration by Joan Oró that the nucleic acid purine base, adenine, was formed by heating aqueous ammonium cyanide solutions. In support of abiogenesis in eutectic ice, more recent work demonstrated the formation of s-triazines (alternative nucleobases), pyrimidines (including cytosine and uracil), and adenine from urea solutions subjected to freeze-thaw cycles under a reductive atmosphere (with spark discharges as an energy source).

Oró, J. (1961). "Mechanism of synthesis of adenine from hydrogen cyanide under possible primitive Earth conditions". Nature 191 (4794): 1193–4.

Menor-Salván C, Ruiz-Bermejo DM, Guzmán MI, Osuna-Esteban S, Veintemillas-Verdaguer S (2007). "Synthesis of pyrimidines and triazines in ice: implications for the prebiotic chemistry of nucleobases". Chemistry 15 (17): 4411–8.

========================

In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called proteinoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'.

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

=========================

Geoffrey W. Hoffmann, a student of Eigen, contributed to the concept of life involving both replication and metabolism emerging from catalytic noise. His contributions included showing that an early sloppy translation machinery can be stable against an error catastrophe of the type that had been envisaged as problematical by Leslie Orgel ("Orgel's paradox") and calculations regarding the occurrence of a set of required catalytic activities together with the exclusion of catalytic activities that would be disruptive. This is called the stochastic theory of the origin of life.

Hoffmann, G. W. (1974). "On the Origin of the Genetic Code and the Stability of the Translation Apparatus". J. Mol. Biol. 86: pp. 349–362.

Orgel, L. (1963). "The Maintenance of the Accuracy of Protein Synthesis and its Relevance to Ageing". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 49: pp. 517–521.

Hoffmann, G. W. (1975). "The Stochastic Theory of the Origin of Life". Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 26: pp. 123–144.

===========================

While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. For example Martin and Russel show that physical compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and they argue therefore that inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor.

Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.

Martin, William; Russel, Michael J. (2003). "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 358 (1429): 59–83; discussion 83–5.

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1//29

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1//29

Vlassov AV, Kazakov SA, Johnston BH, Landweber LF (August 2005). "The RNA world on ice: a new scenario for the emergence of RNA information". J. Mol. Evol. 61 (2): 264–73.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2ee9045613a39f99b996e96f342023d3

 

For me atheism = no proof of a god. It has nothing to do with the arguments for or against evolution or the big bang.

 

I realize of course after dumping one false assertion after the other and ignoring all and any reasonable response to your nonsense , the only one you're going to have left is that false accusation of lying.

Reasonable factual substantive argument has been given to you, even if rather tersely at times by myself I admit (others have been more patient), in contrast to the utter ignorant misunderstanding and misrepresentation, misinterpretation and sometimes even downright deceit in the alteration of words themselves you say Nobel Prize winners have uttered, in order for you to declare what science understands.

It's a completely underhand mendacious attempt to discredit knowledge itself, in the effort to force a primitive and irrational personal belief forward.

What you and others like you do in the name of religion is no more than an insult to human consciousness and reasoning.

 

I just proved you to be a liar. So of course your grade school response is to pretend I misused quotes from scientists.

One again I challenge you to provide the proof you claimed that shows evolution from inorganic matter to organic.

 

you seem to state there is proof of a clear pathway...

Yet you provide papers which only provide hope of discovering a pathway. That is not a clear pathway.

It is not guaranteed that life evolved from non life here on earth.

Crick the discoverer of DNA suggested in a peer reviewed paper that life may have arrived from other planets.

I just provided you a quote in scientific american in 2009 from nobel prize winner Szostak in which he professed determination to find the pathway, but he admitted a pathway may never be found.

And here is another quote from a nobel prize winner.


“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

- Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)

 

I had said there is a pathway which we simply don't completely understand just yet. You seem focused on the fact of our current lack of complete knowledge in this area to support an intelligent design point of view. Because to believe in intelligent design, one has to basically have a large gap in scientific knowledge so as to insert the "God did it" argument.

The evidence says something completely different. In fact, the processes which I posted for you are many times spontaneous reactions which self-organize its components into such things as amino acids.

A quote from a Nobel prize winner means nothing. Only evidence. I posted experimental data which supports assertions completely contrary to what you've been posting "No evidence of spontaneous terrestrial abiogenesis". Clearly, experimentally, there is evidence. Not a clear pathway but that's only because we haven't discovered it yet. Such data and evidence surpass any philosophical musing (from Nobel prize winners or anyone else) you've posted by a long-shot. I attempted to quote you nothing but experimental evidence but you're only response is to reject out of hand everything presented as "not a pathway". What is it then? It's pieces of a puzzle scientists are trying to piece together. Just because we haven't pieced everything together yet doesn't mean by default "intelligent design".

You can't dismiss the evidence of spontaneous creation of organic compounds by a simple wave of the hand. It's right there for you to examine. I couldn't make it any easier.

 

How many times are you going to falsify what I actually said? As many times as you've misrepresented your mined scientist quotes?
In that way for one you proved yourself a liar Jem. That's a bit different to proving me one, to say the least.

Why don't you try and deal with what is actually being said and quite clearly meant, instead of imagining that if you can prove science falls short or is wrong by any means, even by false assertion, God does or even might exist?

That religious reasoning is really infantile and only makes you sound more and more ignorant.

 

That is where you're wrong my friend. Scientific methods don't offer hope. Religion offers hope. Scientific methods offer areas of study that have precedent. If you're studying high level biology it is because several generations of biologists have run studies that allowed you to target an area of study so detailed and so specific that calling it hope is ridiculous.