Paul of Eugene
New Member
Well, what do you expect, when only one living creature out of a million (on average) is actually preserved by fossilization?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Inconsistency of literalists vs science
- Thread starter Paul of Eugene
- Start date
Bad news, Bob. They found a feathered Tyrannosauroid.
"Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids," XING XU1, MARK A. NORELL, XUEWEN KUANG, XIAOLIN WANG, QI ZHAO & CHENGKAI JIA, Nature 431, 680 - 684 (07 October 2004.
But you say birds did not come from reptiles. I guess that means that tyrannosauroids were not actually dinosaurs but just really, really big flightless birds.
"Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids," XING XU1, MARK A. NORELL, XUEWEN KUANG, XIAOLIN WANG, QI ZHAO & CHENGKAI JIA, Nature 431, 680 - 684 (07 October 2004.
But you say birds did not come from reptiles. I guess that means that tyrannosauroids were not actually dinosaurs but just really, really big flightless birds.
oh, brother... We should all be able to say this together now...
READY! 1 ... 2 ... 3 ...
... THANK GOD! This old fossil is ... one living creature out of a million [sic]... that is actually preserved by THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB ...
ONE MORE TIME !!!
I'll FLY AWAY Old Glory ... I'll fly away!
I just HAVE TO LOVE these proto feathers!
PS - sorry about not quoting my sources this time ...
READY! 1 ... 2 ... 3 ...
... THANK GOD! This old fossil is ... one living creature out of a million [sic]... that is actually preserved by THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB ...
ONE MORE TIME !!!
I'll FLY AWAY Old Glory ... I'll fly away!
I just HAVE TO LOVE these proto feathers!
PS - sorry about not quoting my sources this time ...
Oh, brother...
Well, this does go to show a stark contrast between the young earthers and the old earthers.
Here we see a classic case of how the scientific method can be applied to paleontology. With discovery of creatures such as Archaeopteryx that show that birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs (or the minority view that they both evolved from the same basal ancestor), the prediction was made that we should find dinosaurs with various stages of feathers. As these predictions have come true, "many palaeontologists have been predicting just such a find" in the tyrannosauroids. And now we have it.
The find was difficult because the downy coverings of this sort decompose very quickly in air. But at this particular site, all the fossils were quickly buried in volcanic ash and thus well preserved. (Quick question. If all the fossils were laid down in the Flood, then just how do you get layers and layers of sediment with one whole ecosystem buried in ash in the middle of all this?)
But this find just follows on the footsteps of the other feathered dinosaur finds. You can go all the way back to Sinosauropteryx which is covered in protofeathers that look like not much more than hair or perhaps down. These are simple hollow tubes. If you look closely, you can see them in this picture.
http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/feathers/sinosauropteryx2.jpg
Skipping ahead from the downy covering, we can move on to something like Caudipteryx which had long feathers that look much more like what you would expect to see on a bird. Expect that these were symmetrical and therefore would not be very useful for flight. That function was to come later. The feathers should be quite evident in the following image.
http://people.delphiforums.com/MCCONAUGHY/evolution/caudip03.jpg
Finally you come to a dinosaur such as Microraptor. This creature has fully formed, assymetrical flight feathers though its body structure shows that it was not capable of powered flight. It was covered on all four legs with flight feathers. The assymetric characteristic is clearly evident in the following images.
http://www.dinosaur.net.cn/museum/images/Microraptor-gui3.jpg
You might find the following resources valuable as you explore this subject. Or, in contrast, if you wish to reject this information you may want to figure out a way to refute the following.
"Development and Evolutionary Origin of Feathers," Prum, Journal of Experimental Zooloogy (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), Vol. 285, No. 4, pages 291-306, December 15, 1999.
"The Evolutionary Origin and Diversification of Feathers," Prum and Brush, Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 77, No. 3, pages 261 - 295, September 2002.
And in a final though let me remind you that the theory of evolution predicts that we should be making finds such as these. Just as it successfully predicted that we should find whales with legs in various stages. YE has no such ability to make predicts. In fact, if birds are birds and reptiles are reptiles, it should actually predict that we would NOT be finding feathered retiles. But we are. And YE has no intellectually honest answer for why this is so.
Well, this does go to show a stark contrast between the young earthers and the old earthers.
Here we see a classic case of how the scientific method can be applied to paleontology. With discovery of creatures such as Archaeopteryx that show that birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs (or the minority view that they both evolved from the same basal ancestor), the prediction was made that we should find dinosaurs with various stages of feathers. As these predictions have come true, "many palaeontologists have been predicting just such a find" in the tyrannosauroids. And now we have it.
The find was difficult because the downy coverings of this sort decompose very quickly in air. But at this particular site, all the fossils were quickly buried in volcanic ash and thus well preserved. (Quick question. If all the fossils were laid down in the Flood, then just how do you get layers and layers of sediment with one whole ecosystem buried in ash in the middle of all this?)
But this find just follows on the footsteps of the other feathered dinosaur finds. You can go all the way back to Sinosauropteryx which is covered in protofeathers that look like not much more than hair or perhaps down. These are simple hollow tubes. If you look closely, you can see them in this picture.
http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/feathers/sinosauropteryx2.jpg
Skipping ahead from the downy covering, we can move on to something like Caudipteryx which had long feathers that look much more like what you would expect to see on a bird. Expect that these were symmetrical and therefore would not be very useful for flight. That function was to come later. The feathers should be quite evident in the following image.
http://people.delphiforums.com/MCCONAUGHY/evolution/caudip03.jpg
Finally you come to a dinosaur such as Microraptor. This creature has fully formed, assymetrical flight feathers though its body structure shows that it was not capable of powered flight. It was covered on all four legs with flight feathers. The assymetric characteristic is clearly evident in the following images.
http://www.dinosaur.net.cn/museum/images/Microraptor-gui3.jpg
You might find the following resources valuable as you explore this subject. Or, in contrast, if you wish to reject this information you may want to figure out a way to refute the following.
"Development and Evolutionary Origin of Feathers," Prum, Journal of Experimental Zooloogy (Molecular and Developmental Evolution), Vol. 285, No. 4, pages 291-306, December 15, 1999.
"The Evolutionary Origin and Diversification of Feathers," Prum and Brush, Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 77, No. 3, pages 261 - 295, September 2002.
And in a final though let me remind you that the theory of evolution predicts that we should be making finds such as these. Just as it successfully predicted that we should find whales with legs in various stages. YE has no such ability to make predicts. In fact, if birds are birds and reptiles are reptiles, it should actually predict that we would NOT be finding feathered retiles. But we are. And YE has no intellectually honest answer for why this is so.
Bob, I am sorry again. I have more bad news.
This may even be worse than the feathered dinosaurs. That just puts a major dent in one of you four lines of reasoning.
This puts a big hole in two of them.
"Self-Organization of Template-Replicating Polymers and the Spontaneous Rise of Genetic Information," Jarle Breivik, Entropy 2001, 3, 273-279.
http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e3040273.pdf
This may even be worse than the feathered dinosaurs. That just puts a major dent in one of you four lines of reasoning.
This puts a big hole in two of them.
"Self-Organization of Template-Replicating Polymers and the Spontaneous Rise of Genetic Information," Jarle Breivik, Entropy 2001, 3, 273-279.
This shows how entropy is a driving force in the formation of long chains from the simple building blocks and that this dynamic system leads to increased information. So this strikes at the heart of your arguments on both entropy and abiogenesis while also being problematic for Gup's assertions about information loss.
http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e3040273.pdf
Bob
Do you know of any scientist that claims that archy itself is the intermediate? No. Certain features tell us that it was a side branch that preserves many of the features of the true intermediate. This does not take away from its importance at all.
I guess next you will be telling us that Tyrannosauroids are just big, flightless birds, eh?
Do you know of any scientist that claims that archy itself is the intermediate? No. Certain features tell us that it was a side branch that preserves many of the features of the true intermediate. This does not take away from its importance at all.
I guess next you will be telling us that Tyrannosauroids are just big, flightless birds, eh?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Abiogenesis has already been shown to be impossible in the lab. The mono-chiral problem alone makes it untenable.
So -- "no starting point".
And from that "no starting point" the fact that all atheist evolutionists will admit that evolutionism "needs a massive decrease in entropy" in the local system - merely "seals the fate" of this failed science called evolutionism. For atheists like Asimov freely admit that what we SEE in these local systems of human biology is consistent, observable, verifiable, repeatable "increased entropy" and "This is what the 2nd law of thermodynamic is ALL ABOUT" according to Asimov.
Hence: Crib-death for the junk-science we know today as "evolutionism".
Though you repeatedly attempt to obfuscate and misdirect from these clear facts - you have not yet been able to come up with a new one.
In Christ,
Bob
So -- "no starting point".
And from that "no starting point" the fact that all atheist evolutionists will admit that evolutionism "needs a massive decrease in entropy" in the local system - merely "seals the fate" of this failed science called evolutionism. For atheists like Asimov freely admit that what we SEE in these local systems of human biology is consistent, observable, verifiable, repeatable "increased entropy" and "This is what the 2nd law of thermodynamic is ALL ABOUT" according to Asimov.
Hence: Crib-death for the junk-science we know today as "evolutionism".
Though you repeatedly attempt to obfuscate and misdirect from these clear facts - you have not yet been able to come up with a new one.
In Christ,
Bob
"Abiogenesis has already been shown to be impossible in the lab. The mono-chiral problem alone makes it untenable."
Really???
Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?
First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.
But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.
Please take a look at the following paper.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART
If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.
Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 "Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts," Science, Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004
This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found in DNA and RNA.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science, January 9; 303: 196
THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.
Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.
As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.
You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.
I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose,” Science, January 9; 303: 196
Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.
If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.
But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.
So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.
In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.
So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.
Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.
I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...
Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal, 12:503-507
How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.
Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490
Really???
Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?
First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.
But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.
Please take a look at the following paper.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART
If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.
You might want to look up the following papers
Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 "Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts," Science, Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004
This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found in DNA and RNA.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science, January 9; 303: 196
THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.
Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.
As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.
You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.
I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.
Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose,” Science, January 9; 303: 196
Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.
If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.
But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.
So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.
In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.
So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.
Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.
I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...
Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal, 12:503-507
Remember how we talked about the surfaces of borax and clays acting as catalyst. Well they found that RNA makes the left handed proteins even from a mixture of amino acids when on such a surface. SO that gives us three possible cases. The catalysts make the left handed amino acids. The catalyst makes the right handed ribose which then makes RNA which then serves as a catalyst for the left handed amino acids and puts them into proteins. Or RNA on a catalyst makes proteins using only lefthanded amino acids from a mix of amino acids.
How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.
Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490
You might want to study up on the general concepts of that one. How catalyst can arrange molecules in specific ways on their surfaces such that two things can happen. Either reactants that would normally make a racemic mixture can come together in such a way that only one isomer will be made. Or, if you have a randon mix of isomers, that one one will fit on the surface in the right way for a reaction to take place and therefore you can selectively pick out one isomer from a mix.
And from that "no starting point" the fact that all atheist evolutionists will admit that evolutionism "needs a massive decrease in entropy" in the local system - merely "seals the fate" of this failed science called evolutionism. For atheists like Asimov freely admit that what we SEE in these local systems of human biology is consistent, observable, verifiable, repeatable "increased entropy" and "This is what the 2nd law of thermodynamic is ALL ABOUT" according to Asimov.
Really???
"Self-Organization of Template-Replicating Polymers and the Spontaneous Rise of Genetic Information," Jarle Breivik, Entropy 2001, 3, 273-279.
http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e3040273.pdf
Really???
"Self-Organization of Template-Replicating Polymers and the Spontaneous Rise of Genetic Information," Jarle Breivik, Entropy 2001, 3, 273-279.
This shows how entropy is a driving force in the formation of long chains from the simple building blocks and that this dynamic system leads to increased information. So this strikes at the heart of your arguments on both entropy and abiogenesis while also being problematic for Gup's assertions about information loss.
http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e3040273.pdf
"Though you repeatedly attempt to obfuscate and misdirect from these clear facts - you have not yet been able to come up with a new one."
Really???
It seems that I am the only one posting any facts. You seem to think assertions count while I am busy posting published data which you ignore and make the assertions again.
We have yet to even have you give us a citation for your claims on the archy conference. You know, the one where you say they decided it was a true bird when the authors you cited, and all the other authors I can find, actually argued for its intermediate status at the conference.
And who "obfuscate and misdirect from these clear facts?"
Really???
It seems that I am the only one posting any facts. You seem to think assertions count while I am busy posting published data which you ignore and make the assertions again.
We have yet to even have you give us a citation for your claims on the archy conference. You know, the one where you say they decided it was a true bird when the authors you cited, and all the other authors I can find, actually argued for its intermediate status at the conference.
And who "obfuscate
"Hmm so when you claim that Archy is an intermediate BETWEEN TRUE BIRD and true reptiles - you do it without any atheist evolutionists to support you?"
I say the same thing they do.
It IS an intermediate between the two, just not directly. Somewhere, unknown to man a this date, there was a creature very much like archy that was truely intermediate between reptiles and birds. Archy is a descendent of this creature. Though archy is not directly on the line to birds, it preserves many of the transitional features of the actual transitional. You know, all those traits that archy shares with the dinosaurs but with NO BIRDS that you wish to ignore.
It lacks a beak! You claim a true bird that does not have a beak!
Just like the dinosaurs, its trunk vertebrae are not fused while in all birds they are fused.
Its pubic shaft is plate like just like the dromaeosaurs but unlike any bird.
Its head attaches to its neck in the rear just like the dinosuars but unlike any birds.
Its cervixal vertebrae are shaped just like those of the other archosaurs but unlike those of any bird.
It has a long tail with mostly free vertebrae just like in the reptiles while birds all have short, fused tails.
Its pelvic girdle is shaped just like the other archosaurs but completely unlike those of any bird.
Its sacrum consists of six vertebrae just like in the bird like dinosaurs while birds have 2 to 4 TIMES as many vertebrae in their sacrum.
Its nasal opening is in the same location as reptiles but not any birds.
Its fibula and tibia are of the same length just as in all reptiles but in birds the fibia is much shortened.
To name a few.
Now, who is obfuscating?
Oh, and why do we have all those feathered dinosaurs? T-rex just a big bird?
"Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids," XING XU1, MARK A. NORELL, XUEWEN KUANG, XIAOLIN WANG, QI ZHAO & CHENGKAI JIA, Nature 431, 680 - 684, 07 October 2004.
I say the same thing they do.
It IS an intermediate between the two, just not directly. Somewhere, unknown to man a this date, there was a creature very much like archy that was truely intermediate between reptiles and birds. Archy is a descendent of this creature. Though archy is not directly on the line to birds, it preserves many of the transitional features of the actual transitional. You know, all those traits that archy shares with the dinosaurs but with NO BIRDS that you wish to ignore.
It lacks a beak! You claim a true bird that does not have a beak!
Just like the dinosaurs, its trunk vertebrae are not fused while in all birds they are fused.
Its pubic shaft is plate like just like the dromaeosaurs but unlike any bird.
Its head attaches to its neck in the rear just like the dinosuars but unlike any birds.
Its cervixal vertebrae are shaped just like those of the other archosaurs but unlike those of any bird.
It has a long tail with mostly free vertebrae just like in the reptiles while birds all have short, fused tails.
Its pelvic girdle is shaped just like the other archosaurs but completely unlike those of any bird.
Its sacrum consists of six vertebrae just like in the bird like dinosaurs while birds have 2 to 4 TIMES as many vertebrae in their sacrum.
Its nasal opening is in the same location as reptiles but not any birds.
Its fibula and tibia are of the same length just as in all reptiles but in birds the fibia is much shortened.
To name a few.
Now, who is obfuscating?
Oh, and why do we have all those feathered dinosaurs? T-rex just a big bird?
"Basal tyrannosauroids from China and evidence for protofeathers in tyrannosauroids," XING XU1, MARK A. NORELL, XUEWEN KUANG, XIAOLIN WANG, QI ZHAO & CHENGKAI JIA, Nature 431, 680 - 684, 07 October 2004.
"Abiogenesis has already been shown to be impossible in the lab."
Impossible is such a strong word.
Why don't you provide us one reference to published data that shows it to truely be "impossible." Not just unlikely. Just not that some or all of the current theories have problems. (There are difficulties with what I have posted, but you are not even interested enough in facts to go find out what they are.) You need to show us that all possible pathways to life, even those as yet unconsidered, are impossible. Completely and utterly. Not just very very difficult.
I'll expect this about the time I get your citation for your archy conference claims.
And I have given you a few ways around the chiral problem so I doubt it is the obstacle you believe it to be. Certainly not "impossible."
Impossible is such a strong word.
Why don't you provide us one reference to published data that shows it to truely be "impossible." Not just unlikely. Just not that some or all of the current theories have problems. (There are difficulties with what I have posted, but you are not even interested enough in facts to go find out what they are.) You need to show us that all possible pathways to life, even those as yet unconsidered, are impossible. Completely and utterly. Not just very very difficult.
I'll expect this about the time I get your citation for your archy conference claims.
And I have given you a few ways around the chiral problem so I doubt it is the obstacle you believe it to be. Certainly not "impossible."
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Depends on how comfortable you are with good science. If you are willing to actually open your mind to good science and leave the shadow lands of junk-science myths and speculation, the lab experiements are there for all to see.
NO amino-acid productions consisting of only mono-chiral amino acid chains forming the acids and proteins needed for even one living cell.
Not one experiment comes out that way -- and for good reason.
Are you admitting to an article of faith? Is that a spec of light I see you letting in the door UTEOTW!
I applaud your progress. Having nothing to support your hopes for abiogenesis but "more hopes" you finally admit that even in your corner - it appears "unlikely".
I say again - bravo!!
I thought would simply circle that one in obfuscation after obfuscation, but here you actually venture to confess something.
Outstanding!
Of course your "prove that the mythical success I speculate for future experiments not yet actually seen in real life -- is impossible" obfuscation was a misderection that was creative UTEOTW. I wonder how many people will be duped.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW's supposed "Self organizing" example is pure fabrication - based on much more information put INTO the experiment (as can be seen below) than the experiment "generates".
Entropy holds.
To atheists - Living systems imply self-reproducing constructs capable of Darwinian
evolution.
Notice this statement in the abstract that UTEOTW omits
Bob
Entropy holds.
Hence as the article starts out claiming (and UTEOTW conveniently omits in his obfuscation of the facts).
To atheists - Living systems imply self-reproducing constructs capable of Darwinian
evolution.
Notice this statement in the abstract that UTEOTW omits
In Christ,
Bob