Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Notice stu did not proffer a single source for his info. He can not because there are no complete plausible pathways. The person who observes a pathway or even figures one out, will win the nobel prize.

I cited a quote from a nobel prize winner a paper from MIT as well as the wikipedia's article on abiogenesis. Stu cites his on delusions.

I predict he will now try to change the subject by telling you I mis typed cite in the past or something equally irrelevant.

 

This is a summary of the science in a paper from MIT... you can see Stu's conclusions are the delusional rants of an et atheist who can not accept science conflicts with his desire for evolution by random chance.


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

"We" now know no such thing.

It's philosophy. Not science. The author is philosophizing.

 

A source for what info? You have all the sources for all the info you need to support the fact that there are multiple plausible pathways for abiogenesis.
For one , Szostak in your own quote, your Nobel prize winner quote, is a source which confirms that very fact. Why would I need to produce anything else?
He says "...we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened"
Multiple ways, ways explained by the scientific process in his subject abiogenesis. What is that if not multiple plausible ways.

Because the plausible pathways are not complete does not mean there aren't plausible pathways. jeeez.

Just admit for once why you are so stuck on the word complete when there are actually plausible pathways for abiogenesis.
It’s because you're still desperately trying to intimate for some strange reason that incomplete science offers some hope for a Creator God .

 

szostak stated there were no "complete plausible pathways"... and that is why I was using his language. Now we see you take the spineless way out and change the argument. (as I predicted).


Szostak: Absolutely! I mean what we're interested in is figuring out plausible pathways for the origin of life. It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened. So that makes us think the overall process might be more robust. So, you know, ultimately it would be nice, I think, if it turned out that there were multiple plausible pathways; then, of course, we might never know what really happened on the early Earth.

Steps are not the issue, the issue is observation or proof of non life to life. Hence you would need a complete plausible pathway.

Miller Urey was steps. I was not arguing about steps. You said you had plenty of science for proof of non life to life. You have now been shown to be a fraud.

 

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

that is not philosophy... that is fact.
"The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known."

Restated... there is no complete plausible pathway.
knowing a step in the path.... is just that a step. Without knowing the entire sequence, you do not know how non life became life.

By the way when a chorus of the best scientific researches in the field sate that it looks like random chance did not create life. That is scientific opinion not philosophy. (opinion can change, but I go with their opinion over et atheist rants.)

 

I don't know how you arrived at "no complete plausible pathway" from "is not known." You really ought to check your assumptions.

Citation of this "chorus of the best scientific researches" would be nice too. Otherwise I'd mark you as an "et creationist rant".

 

One way to say no one knows how life came about from non life is this...

"The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"

Another way is the way the quote from szostak in which he stated there is no complete plausible pathway.


and for the chorus.

You can read the paper I cited a page for two back from MIT on that subject.

 

Stu... by the way... we are still waiting for you to produce a cite or evidence to a scientist (or science) which states (or shows) that they have proof of non life to life.

You said you had that science... so lets see it or stop your barrage of b.s.

 

Anyone watch The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation
on the Science Channel last night?

I thought it was interesting.



Also just watched a short documentary of sorts my wife had recorded on out of body/near death experiences. Also interesting.