Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya

[Ullopincrate]

Thanks man. Much appreciated. And I'd have one with you to. Slainte! (cheers in gaelic) St. Patricks day coming soon.

 

[the_deeb]

Good job keeping things civil guys. It's a refreshing change from these sorts of debates. Ullopincrate - I'm sorry you've been receiving hate mail and think that's completely inapproriate. While I think a person should make an effort to correct what they view as a misunderstanding on the part of another I definitely do not think they should resort to insults or degradation. I hope you don't take offense at my responses to you - I assure you none is intended.

However there is no evolution without life. If you can't explain how life started then we again are at an impasse. period.

I honestly don't think this is fair. As I said before, evolution makes NO claims about the origins of life. If you think that evolution can't exist without chemical abiogenesis then I honestly think you misunderstand the theory. It's like saying that the theory of gravity doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain tornadoes.

We know that life exists because we can see it around us. So regardless of how it started, we know that it DID start. If you want to argue that evolution needs life to be relevant, it has clearly has life (regardless of origins) therefore the application of evolution is sound.

This one (fasebj) was interesting but still doesn't show me life. It's a good read but it's not proving life came from nothing. It is written with an agenda as was my chemistry story which contradicts life coming from nothing (have a read, I posted it 2x).. You, aren't qualified to argue with the guy who wrote my chemistry story nor am I qualified to argue with the authors of your post.

I'm a biologist by training, not a chemist, but I have taken my fairly share of college and graduate level organic chemistry and biochemisty courses. I'm by no means an expert but I think I know enough to say that the McCombs article that you keep citing ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=45 ) on the impossiblity of chemical abiogenesis has a number of problems. I don't have time to go through them one by one, but here are some points that I think are crucial flaws in his argument.

He uses many strawman arguments in his article (incorrectly portraying the opposing side's arguments to make them easier to refute). One of the main ones is insting that abiogeneis claims that initial life had the complexity of modern proteins and nucleic acids. Modern proteins are very complex and no one claims that they self assembled that way. Current theories on abiogenesis suggest that the first molecules to self assmemble were probably polysaccharides, lipids and ribonucleotides. A broad variety of these molecules are thought to have existed in the primordial soup and many of them have been shown to spontaneously polymerize. It is interesting that he does not mention any of these in his article. I don't know if his article is old and he was therefore not aware of these aspects of the theory or if he deliberately left them out.

He also makes a big deal out of the fact that the primordial soup must have been stable and therefore non-reactive. That would be true if it was a completely closed and controlled system but that's a comletely false proposition. A primordial soup would have covered a vast area and would therefore have been succeptible to huge fluctuations in local temperature, pH, cation and anion concentrations, UV light and the physical proximty of potential monomers and other associated molecules. These variations could easily have contributed to an environment where polymerization was sometimes favorable thermodynamically and sometimes not.

Ok, I need to get back to work.

 

[Ullopincrate]

I honestly don't think this is fair. As I said before, evolution makes NO claims about the origins of life. If you think that evolution can't exist without chemical abiogenesis then I honestly think you misunderstand the theory. It's like saying that the theory of gravity doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain tornadoes.

I don't think this argument is fair either. I can only express dissent on your terms. Some of my beliefs aren't allowed to be said. Something evolved into life for evolution to be around to start with. Not addressing this, to me, is an omission that is convenient for Darwin. He didn't use it because he couldn't find a way around it. The school of thought that life came from chemical reactions to this day isn't proven. Where did the chemicals come from even IF it was possible?

So regardless of how it started, we know that it DID start. If you want to argue that evolution needs life to be relevant, it has clearly has life (regardless of origins) therefore the application of evolution is sound.

I disagree. It's like watching the evolution of the automobile and assuming the parts for the first one assembled themselves.

I think I know enough to say that the McCombs article that you keep citing on the impossiblity of chemical abiogenesis has a number of problems.

Every thought posted here has problems. You think you know enough to argue a point, but what would happen if you argued with the author who is not here to defend his statements? I'm sure you wouldn't win him over. That's why these are suggestions, opinions, and guesses. It's not that I am gung ho over this particular author. I came across it and posted it. I could look up others but ultimately where would that get us except right back here.

He uses many strawman arguments in his article (incorrectly portraying the opposing side's arguments to make them easier to refute). One of the main ones is insting that abiogeneis claims that initial life had the complexity of modern proteins and nucleic acids. Modern proteins are very complex and no one claims that they self assembled that way. Current theories on abiogenesis suggest that the first molecules to self assmemble were probably polysaccharides, lipids and ribonucleotides. A broad variety of these molecules are thought to have existed in the primordial soup and many of them have been shown to spontaneously polymerize. It is interesting that he does not mention any of these in his article. I don't know if his article is old and he was therefore not aware of these aspects of the theory or if he deliberately left them out.

These again are thoughts and possible explanations just like that of everything else posted in this thread. But not enough to convince me and a legion of others including many scientists. Also it makes it easier for you to refute my stance when I have to debate with one hand behind my back because of rules.

He also makes a big deal out of the fact that the primordial soup must have been stable and therefore non-reactive. That would be true if it was a completely closed and controlled system but that's a comletely false proposition. A primordial soup would have covered a vast area and would therefore have been succeptible to huge fluctuations in local temperature, pH, cation and anion concentrations, UV light and the physical proximty of potential monomers and other associated molecules. These variations could easily have contributed to an environment where polymerization was sometimes favorable thermodynamically and sometimes not.

I could ask you where the primordial soup came from now couldn't I?
Atoms try to get noble gas structure and don't waste time doing it.
The word "could" is also speculative. You too are not knowledgeable enough to dispute the authors of various input on this thread. You lay out your arguments. I lay out mine (what I am allowed to). You can not disprove what you know my stance is. Where did the primordial soup come from?
I'm not trying to be argumentative. We just can't really come to a definitive conclusion.

Ok, I need to get back to work.

Have a good one man.

 

[NilePufferFanatic]

I love the clip on page 4, the professor has a slide that skews the debate as Creation against Evolution(3:40). In science I thought we analyze one idea at a time and focused on the natural world. The debate should be whether evolution is a good vehicle to explain our world.

Good job guys on staying on topic.

 

[Ullopincrate]

I didn't really care for that clip either. It sounded staged and half comedy routine. But that wasn't one of my arguments someone else brought it up. It's very interesting but I think this thread has kind of petered out.

 

[Cohazard]

I love the clip on page 4, the professor has a slide that skews the debate as Creation against Evolution(3:40). In science I thought we analyze one idea at a time and focused on the natural world. The debate should be whether evolution is a good vehicle to explain our world.

Good job guys on staying on topic.

Well, there is a good reason for that. Irreducible complexity is a creationist idea, which was claimed to prove that early life was too complex to have evolved, that all the pieces had to spontaneously be created at the same time in that specific arrangement, or the flagellum would not work.

To simplify we can use deductive reasoning:

Creationism created Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible Complexity attempts to refute evolution

Creationism attempts to refute evolution.




So in fact, he is not skewing the debate, the debate IS between these two ideas, and the argument that is being focused on, is irreducible complexity, which was proved wrong.

 

[srikamaraja]

Half an eye is quite useful, if everything else is blind
It's quite an achievement to be able to tell if there is light or not at all

(in refutation to irreducible complexity, not genesis/abiogenesis)

 

[FSM]

This is silly.

 

[srikamaraja]

Not silly. Just wants to stay on MFK. Avoid religion talk, avoid Banhammer.

 

[chefjamesscott]

well just found this thread now to read 11 pages then comment