Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Helen]

ahh, more definite evidence from Galatian!

 

[The Galatian]

Observations are not evidence. Evidence, such as detailed at RNA world and elsewhere, is evidence.

And yes, I'm sure we'll be told that's not "REAL" evidence, either.

 

[Helen]

Please do not confuse evidence with interpretations and opinions, OK?

 

[The Galatian]

Something we should all remember, Helen.

 

[BobRyan]

Edgeo
I have seen no 'appeals to faith' by Galatian. He has made simple factual statements that he accepts as being in the realm of science, while you do not. End of story.

Then you are not reading his posts. The one where he argues that we should not believe the fact that science does not support evolution's abiogenesis - but rather we should have faith that "one day" science WILL find support for it, is classic "believe-ism for evolutionism".

And as already stated - a bit of a surprise to find in a Christian message board where you are "supposed" to be saying "I believed in Christianity's creationism UNTIL that overwhelming scientific evidence convinced me otherwise".

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

OK.

I believed in Christianity's young earth creationism UNTIL the overwhelming scientific evidence convinced me otherwise.

 

[Edgeo]

Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
Whenever you believe in something without ANY real evidence to support that belief, it can certainly be called a "blind faith".

Thank you for confirming that I am on firm ground. Though you may not accept my evidence or Galatian's is immaterial.

I have repeatedly asked for evidence and none has been provided.

Then you haven't been reading our posts. You are drawing unwarranted conclusions. I am no biologist, so your question is outside my field. As far as I am concerned, Galatian has answered you. Just because you think you have found a single question that might not be answered hardly refutes evolution or even abiogenesis. You can ignore the rest of the world of science if you wish, but most of us cannot.

In order to support naturalism and a naturalisticly produced abiogenesis, then it is not unreasonable to ask for evidence of natural processes and experiments to support such claims.

No, it isn't. However, it might be unreasonable to think that you have refuted abiogenesis (and by extension, evolution) with a question or a number of questions. The point is that you need your scenario to explain the world as it is.

To date, only the basic building blocks have been shown to appear under natural conditions and these are ALWAYS produced with enough contaminants to destroy any substantial polypeptide chain of chiral purity (I again suggest a minimum length of 150 amino acids as this is the number found in one of the simplist proteins known). Chiral purity appears to be one of the requirements for life to form... one of the simplist and most basic. Once that is accomplished (which has not happened yet) we would also need to show that these true proteins can be produced in enough concentrations to be biologically significant... but we have to get past the first step first. Again, where is the evidence?

The evidence says that it happened, no matter what you might say. Since evolution is so well established as a natural phenomenon, there is every reason to suspect that origins are likewise natural.

As to the RNA/DNA first abiogenesis scenario, I have also pointed out that there are also quite a bit of problems with that effort also and that the self-assembling and self-replicating RNA world experiments may be a remarkable achievement there are a number of true experts in the field, like NYU Professor Emmeratis Robert Shapiro who have pointed out MAJOR problems with these experiments and indicated their irrelivancy to abiogenesis even though they themselves are naturalistic evolutionist and believes the universe is teeming with naturalisticly produced lifeforms.

Life is very much like a complex chemical symphony and, again, nature may produce shapes and wind that produce musical notes, but nature will NEVER produce a complex symphony without the aid of Intelligent Design (if you think it can, please produce the evidence or you will again be operating in "blind faith").

Once again, you may as well be speaking Greek to me with the biology. However, the evidence for naturalism in general is a good basis to assume that abiogenesis is at least possible. Personally, I don't have that much of an opinion on abiogenesis. However, you have given me no compelling evidence for ID or creationism.

Now, as there has not been ANY evidence presented truely relevent to abiogenesis, it is quite a stretch to say that the evidence from such experiments "lean towards" that goal... they do not. If anything, they show the limits of un-directed natural processes to organize into life.

I am wondering just where you think they lean. The only evidence for ID that you provide is simply personal incredulity.

This is evident from the fact that you cannot truly provide evidence for your beliefs, but can only operate in attack mode. Now, when you can provide evidence of ID, we can have a realistic discussion, but as long as you can criticize us for your own faults it is all meaningless.

Above, you complain of no answer to your question. Well, welcome to the club. I have had scores of questions to creationists go unanswered! What do you think this means?

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOW
I believed in Christianity's young earth creationism UNTIL the overwhelming scientific evidence convinced me otherwise

Ahh. A rational post at last from our evolutionist friends!

I applaud your beginning.

And now - abiogenesis?
And now - the "overwhelming evidence" that LIFE does "spontaneously exist" from non-living environments? (New age - alchemy)
And now - the compelling imperical data?
And now the "SALIENT" point of biological evolution that is MOST testable, that is MOST verifiable - abiogenesis?

The "success" of evolutionism to date is measured by its ability to "AVOID verification" of the salient points of DIFFERENCE between the YEC (youg earth creationist) model and the distinctives of evolutionism. But in Abiogenesis the Evol model is CLOSEST to actually TESTABILITY (hence the unceasing efforts to distance itself from "the test").

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have repeatedly asked for evidence and none has been provided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egeo
Then you haven't been reading our posts. You are drawing unwarranted conclusions. I am no biologist, so your question is outside my field.

ahh - a confession at last! You don't follow the posts, you don't have the background you don't understand the essence of the argument about chirality of the amino acids or the need of the Levro set for life building proteins - you don't see any evidence of life-building proteins "assembling into living cells structures" or into "living cells" - and YET - "your case is proven"???

Blind faith "indeed".

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

I'm kind of surprised that Bob is attributing to us the view that there is "overwhelming evidence" that abiogenesis is correct, when he's been repeatedly reminded that the evidence is not yet compelling.

 

[UTEOTW]

Oh Bob, you know I was just playing along with you. You did ask for someone to say that.

Abiogenesis... Well, so far the evidence of how it may have happened is not yet compelling. And given the lack of physical evidence it may never be compelling. There are many ideas floating around and at least some evidence of the possibility of compounds thought to be important that could be made naturally. There is still a long ways to go and it is a problem that may never have a satisfactory answer. But I would not pin my hopes on answers to the questions of abiogenesis never being found.

But, IMHO, the evidence from biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. is very compelling of an old earth and old universe and of common descent.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Oh Bob, you know I was just playing along with you. You did ask for someone to say that.

Abiogenesis... Well, so far the evidence of how it may have happened is not yet compelling. And given the lack of physical evidence it may never be compelling. There are many ideas floating around and at least some evidence of the possibility of compounds thought to be important that could be made naturally. There is still a long ways to go and it is a problem that may never have a satisfactory answer. But I would not pin my hopes on answers to the questions of abiogenesis never being found.

But, IMHO, the evidence from biology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. is very compelling of an old earth and old universe and of common descent.

It's not the evidence you are considering in that light, but the interpretation of the evidence. I was an evolutionist, and then an old age creationist, until the evidence itself showed me that both had to be false. Nor was it an interpretation of the evidence -- it was, finally, my willingness to look at the evidence straight on, without by evolutionary glasses and without my presuppositions. It was being willing to look at the evidence saying, "What if....?"

Life is NOT the 'right combination of chemicals at the right time and place.' Yet this sort of definition is precisely what those proposing abiogenesis are saying. Life is a condition imposed on those chemicals. All our efforts to prove otherwise have failed, no matter what amino acids are found in what meteorites or anything else.

The proof of that was given and promptly mocked here. Take a living cell -- any cell. Stop the functions (kill it). Start the functions again. You cannot do it. And yet all the chemicals are there in the precise numbers and form and environment needed...

Nor is the kind of evolution proposed by evolutionists possible biologically. All we have ever seen is variations about a mean, or basic type, of any plant or animal. We cannot get beyond that no matter what is done or seen in nature. Fish do not grow hip joints, no matter how much time they are given. Cold-blooded animals do not become warm-blooded animals under any conditions. The bone structure of birds is unique to them.

This, and I was chuckling reading the evasive responses yesterday, is precisely why there can be such divisions as phylums and classes and such in the plant and animal world. There are some very definite differences which, at that level, are easily seen. There is no muddy in-between ground between birds and mammals, or between reptiles and birds in our lives -- only in the interpretations of fossils. The closest thing we have to any transitional form today is something like the platypus which is an acknowledged 'mosaic.' In interesting variation.

My bet is that, knowing what we know about genetics now, a number of the claimed transitionals could also have been put in that category! They were interesting variations, not transitionals from one form to another at all. We still have interesting variations around. Sometimes we breed for them!

 

[The Galatian]

This, and I was chuckling reading the evasive responses yesterday, is precisely why there can be such divisions as phylums and classes and such in the plant and animal world.

The higher taxa are mostly a matter of judgement, because there are no clear divisions in the history of life between any of them. This is one of the first and most important facts that creationism is unable to explain.

There are some very definite differences which, at that level, are easily seen.

Hmm... so you're asserting that there are no intermediates between say, annelids and arthropods, or between echinoderms and chordates?

That's demonstrably false.

There is no muddy in-between ground between birds and mammals,

Since evolutionary theory says that birds did not evolve from mammals and mammals did not evolve from birds, that's another confirmation of the theory. We shouldn't see intermediates between birds and mammals.

or between reptiles and birds in our lives -- only in the interpretations of fossils.

Well, let's take a look. Are you of the opinion that Archaeopteryx is a bird or a reptile? How about Proarchaeopteryx? Are you saying that archaeopteryx has no features found on one, and all the features found on the other? Or is it intermeditate in some respects?

The closest thing we have to any transitional form today is something like the platypus which is an acknowledged 'mosaic.'

All intermediates are mosaics. If they didn't have a mixture of two different forms they wouldn't be intermediate, would they?

I know you know that the platypus doesn't have a bird's beak, but some people on the forum might not be familiar with that, and think you were talking about it.

My bet is that, knowing what we know about genetics now, a number of the claimed transitionals could also have been put in that category! They were interesting variations, not transitionals from one form to another at all.

The platypus is transitional, because it is a mosaic of mammalian and reptillian features. Let's take a few other transitional forms...

____________________________________________
Acanthostega is a fish. It has internal gills only found on fish, a lateral line system only found in fish, many features of the skull that are only found on fish, and a complex rayed tail only found on fish.

But it also has legs, complete with femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals and phalanges, just like any tetrapod.
______________________________________

Thrinaxodon has a lower jaw made of several bones, a feature never found in mammals. It has a tiny reptillian brain (cranium is tiny) and it has the primitive reptillian ear (the missing "mammalian bones" are still attached to the jaw).

It lacks the large infraorbial foramina that would signify that it had movable cheeks and lips like a mammal.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/rowe/estes.html

However, it has a secondary palate, something never seen in reptiles. It has joined external nares, something never seen in reptiles, and it has two occipital condyles, found only in mammals.

Teeth are differentiated somewhat, something not seen in reptiles.

Technically, it's a reptile, because mammals have only one lower jawbone, with the other two moving to the ear early in utero.

Leonard Radinsky Evolution of Vertebrate Design

We still have interesting variations around. Sometimes we breed for them!

So does natural selection. But it has more time and specimens to work with. Try breeding a reptile to get a secondary palate sometime. While you're doing it, also change the teeth to take advantage of the ability to eat and breathe at the same time. And make sure you strengthen the lower jaw to make that feasible, and give it a higher metabolism, and then...

You have a mammal. It's perfectly feasible; it's been done before. But it takes a long time, and lots of raw material.

Good luck.

 

[BobRyan]

Helen --
It's not the evidence you are considering in that light, but the interpretation of the evidence. I was an evolutionist, and then an old age creationist, until the evidence itself showed me that both had to be false.

So you're saying our Creator God IS the God of Creation?

What about death and caranage, starvation and extermination as "the chosen means of a God of Love"? Did you find that to be consistent with God's Word?

Did you find that when faith "in evolutionism" is set aside - the impirical data AND the Word of God are in perfect harmony?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Galation
when he's been repeatedly reminded that the evidence is not yet compelling.

Is this the part where you remind us of your post where you "claimed" that the evidence was overwhelmingly leaning toward abiogenesis (INSTEAD of showing us that NO LIFE at all was being "produced in the lab much less in nature apart from living systems"?)

Please recall the basics - stated at the outset of the abiogenesis discussion. PRODUCING life in the lab would ITSELF not be a "proof" that this is what happened in nature - BUT it would be a significant STEP toward discovering real viable processes that might/possibly/hopefully be found in nature one day. SEEING them work in the lab then looking for at least ONE of the working lab scenarios to be actually FOUND to work in nature - would certainly make a strong argument for it.

Then SHOWING it happening in nature - would be the ultimate.

But "just suppose" you were "stuck back the lab UNNABLE to contrive even that one lab-based-cell experiment". Unnable to even "cheat" your way to modern day "spontaneous generation".

Amazing.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The higher taxa are mostly a matter of judgement, because there are no clear divisions in the history of life between any of them. This is one of the first and most important facts that creationism is unable to explain

Ahhh - the desire to avoid the topic of abiogenesis. Bravo!!

Notice that regarding the above "there are in fact NO examples of TRANSITIONAL FORMS between EVEN the somewhat arbitrary divisions set for our taxonomy of higher life forms". But if we use the wide range of diverging features of canine as our "standard" for diversity WITHIN a "kind" we STILL have NO possibility of ranging from dog to cat, or from dog to pig etc etc.

Bob

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The higher taxa are mostly a matter of judgement, because there are no clear divisions in the history of life between any of them. This is one of the first and most important facts that creationism is unable to explain

Ahhh - the desire to avoid the topic of abiogenesis. Bravo!!

Notice that regarding the above "there are in fact NO examples of TRANSITIONAL FORMS between EVEN the somewhat arbitrary divisions set for our taxonomy of higher life forms". But if we use the wide range of diverging features of canine as our "standard" for diversity WITHIN a "kind" we STILL have NO possibility of ranging from dog to cat, or from dog to pig etc etc.

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You'd have to open your eyes in order to see the evidence Bob. You *don't* want there to be transitional fossils, so therefore you refuse to even entertain the idea of them. No amount of evidence will convince you, Jesus could tap you on the shoulder and show you one of the fossils and you'd still exclaim your closed viewpoint.

It's sad.

 

[Helen]

Transitions are in the eye of the beholder -- the beholder who has the presuppositions that they exist!

It's just like EVERY ancient skull that is found now is suddenly a human forebear.

Sure....

It does engender grant money, though!

 

[The Galatian]

Helen, I asked a few questions that might shed some light for us on the question of transitionals, if you would answer them.

And no, most hominid skulls found to date are not thought to be our direct ancestors.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
It's not the evidence you are considering in that light, but the interpretation of the evidence.

Are you expecting to find a little sign that says "Hello! I'm a transitional fossil!" All we can do in life is to interpet what is around us. Saying it is a mere interpretation is a non-argument unless you can provide a better explanation of the evidence. Otherwise it is just ducking the question. This is like the old chestnut that no one can know what happened if they weren't there. Yet we have forensics.

Nor was it an interpretation of the evidence -- it was, finally, my willingness to look at the evidence straight on, without by evolutionary glasses and without my presuppositions.

Well I, and a number of other people here, have had the opposite experience. I believed in a young earth and was very suspicious of any kind of old earth or evolution. But my mind was changed.

Take a living cell -- any cell. Stop the functions (kill it).

Why do you think that the fact that you cannot take a working system, destroy the system, and then expect it to start working again proves anything? Give me a week to reduce your care to its constituent nuts and bolts and such and I bet I can never get it to work again either. Maybe one day we will have the ability to build functioning cells from the raw parts of another cell. Then what? You seem to be implying that the chemistry of life is not enough on its own, that there is a constant, outside supernatural force that must be acting on each cell to keep it alive. You say that it is an outside "condition" imposed on the constituent parts. I do not think that biologists have any problems explaining the functions of a cell in chemical terms. It is not an outside condition, it obeys the observable laws of the universe.

Fish do not grow hip joints, no matter how much time they are given.

I suggest you look at Acanthostega and its ancestors.

Cold-blooded animals do not become warm-blooded animals under any conditions.

If you would follow the links I gave you on the reptile to mammal transition you would see the gradual development of the features that indicate warm bloodedness from cold blooded animals.

The bone structure of birds is unique to them.

How so? There is a whole group of theropod dinosaurs called Coelurosaurs that have bone structures very similar to birds including hollow bones and the proper hinge joints that was later important for flight.

There are some very definite differences which, at that level, are easily seen.

Then sorting the organisms of the world into distinct kinds should be very easy. Where is this list? Or even, how about a list of a dozen or so original "kinds" so that we can look at what kind of changes would have been necessary to get us to the species we have today.

The closest thing we have to any transitional form today is something like the platypus which is an acknowledged 'mosaic.' In interesting variation. My bet is that, knowing what we know about genetics now, a number of the claimed transitionals could also have been put in that category! They were interesting variations, not transitionals from one form to another at all. We still have interesting variations around. Sometimes we breed for them!

What exactly would you expect a transitional to be? A mosaic is a good enough term for some!