It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

There are 151492 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115588 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge, ChromiuMan...
You can start with all of the amino acids and nucleotides that you like.
Explain how life could form by random evolutionary processes.
Same old creationist verbal trickery - or is it selective functional illiteracy? Evolution and abiogenesis are not even similar processes, and both are ongoing subjects of study - but of course you already know that, since "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate," right? How about your "crowd" dazzle the "Darwin crowd" with those missing facts, HTS? We've been waiting for waaay past 100,000 posts now. Waiting. Waiting. Still waiting.

Meanwhile, Genesis hasn't changed in thousands of years, so you've had plenty of time to reconcile the myth with reality. How's that one coming along? Not so good, last I heard. Can you start with a day = a thousand years and visa versa, or would you prefer the order of creation, or perhaps a comparison of events between Gen 1 and Gen 2?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115589 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
This entire discussion is pointless.
Jonah being swallowed by a whale is only one of many miracles of the Bible that cannot be explained by appeals to known scientific laws. It is believed that a higher power exists, that can operate through laws that man does not understand. I find the parting of the Red Sea by Moses and Christ raising Lazarus from the dead much more difficult to explain in terms of known laws of science. Why is everyone fixating on Jonah?
It isn't about Jonah, it's about the morons who swallow the story.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115590 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is nonsense from a scientific reality point.
Your only alternative is the magic "evolutiondidit" mantra. You assume that anything that you don't understand is "magic". Why do yo call miracles as recorded in the Bible as "magic" and you call spontaneous self-organization of DNA "science". You have unalterable FAITH that it occurred. That is religion.
No, it is not religion. It is a strong conjecture....but with a LOT of evidence to support it. We're just hammering out the details of how life COULD HAVE started. It's quite likely we'll never know the precise method of abiogenesis.

Should we find a plausible pathway for NATURAL abiogenesis, that still does not mean that <<insert Deity of your choice>> wasn't the Supreme Being pulling the strings.

"Abiogenesis" is life from non-life. In that context, even the Bible agrees that abiogenesis occurred.

However, I understand you're questioning NATURAL abiogenesis.

Spontaneous Generation of RNA in Water

Definition of life is an open problem. The largely accepted wording:“Life is a self sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution”

(1) attains a solid operative sense but it is more the description of a process than a formal definition of a system. If we have difficulty in even formulating a rigorous definition of life, certainly we do not know how it started. In recent years, progress has been made in the search for the unitary chemical frame into which the first reactions lighted up and started accumulating and evolving chemical information. In collaboration with R. Saladino group (Università della Tuscia, Italy), we have shown that formamide (HCONH2), one of the simplest molecules grouping the four most common elements of the universe H, C, O and N, provides a chemical frame potentially affording all the monomeric components necessary for the formation of nucleic polymers (lastly reviewed in Saladino 2). In the presence of the appropriate catalysts and by moderate heating, formamide yields a complete set of nucleic bases, acyclonucleosides and favours both their phosphorylation and transphosphorylation.

Nucleotide phosphorylation and RNA oligomerization take place in water in non-enzymatic abiotic conditions. At moderate temperatures (40-90°C) RNA chains up to 120 nucleotides long may form from 3’, 5’-cAMP and 3’, 5’-cGMP, in the absence of enzymes or inorganic catalysts (3). Mechanisms of abiotic RNA chain extension and ligation based on base-pairing and base-stacking interactions were also observed (4, 5). The enzyme and the template-independent synthesis of long oligomers in water, from prebiotically affordable precursors, approaches the concept of spontaneous generation and evolution of (pre)genetic information.

<<with references attached for additional research>>

http://www.jbsdonline.com/Spontaneous-Generat...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#115591 May 15, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not religion. It is a strong conjecture....but with a LOT of evidence to support it. We're just hammering out the details of how life COULD HAVE started. It's quite likely we'll never know the precise method of abiogenesis.
Should we find a plausible pathway for NATURAL abiogenesis, that still does not mean that <<insert Deity of your choice>> wasn't the Supreme Being pulling the strings.
"Abiogenesis" is life from non-life. In that context, even the Bible agrees that abiogenesis occurred.
However, I understand you're questioning NATURAL abiogenesis.
Spontaneous Generation of RNA in Water
Definition of life is an open problem. The largely accepted wording:“Life is a self sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution”
(1) attains a solid operative sense but it is more the description of a process than a formal definition of a system. If we have difficulty in even formulating a rigorous definition of life, certainly we do not know how it started. In recent years, progress has been made in the search for the unitary chemical frame into which the first reactions lighted up and started accumulating and evolving chemical information. In collaboration with R. Saladino group (Università della Tuscia, Italy), we have shown that formamide (HCONH2), one of the simplest molecules grouping the four most common elements of the universe H, C, O and N, provides a chemical frame potentially affording all the monomeric components necessary for the formation of nucleic polymers (lastly reviewed in Saladino 2). In the presence of the appropriate catalysts and by moderate heating, formamide yields a complete set of nucleic bases, acyclonucleosides and favours both their phosphorylation and transphosphorylation.
Nucleotide phosphorylation and RNA oligomerization take place in water in non-enzymatic abiotic conditions. At moderate temperatures (40-90°C) RNA chains up to 120 nucleotides long may form from 3’, 5’-cAMP and 3’, 5’-cGMP, in the absence of enzymes or inorganic catalysts (3). Mechanisms of abiotic RNA chain extension and ligation based on base-pairing and base-stacking interactions were also observed (4, 5). The enzyme and the template-independent synthesis of long oligomers in water, from prebiotically affordable precursors, approaches the concept of spontaneous generation and evolution of (pre)genetic information.
<<with references attached for additional research>>
http://www.jbsdonline.com/Spontaneous-Generat...
You cannot logically defend abiogenesis by appeals to science.
The only line of defense you can present is that you think evolution occurred, therefore abiosgenesis must have occurred.
Your explanation has the appearance of science, but it isn't.
Spontaneous nucleotide phosphorylation and RNA oligopolimerization in abiotic conditions doesn't prove anything. It would be like suggesting that a monkey could type a Shakespearean play because you had documented that it could randomly type keys. No experiment has demonstrated that nucleotides could self organize into a genetic code. The observations you sited referred to random sequences of RNA nucleotides, NOT a genetic code. A monkey can randomly type keys. That does not mean he can compose Shakespeare. There's a big difference.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115592 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge, ChromiuMan...
You can start with all of the amino acids and nucleotides that you like.
Explain how life could form by random evolutionary processes.

Explain how it couldn't.

Go ahead, we will wait.

Give us the false 'tornado in a junk yard' analogy again. We won't notice it is stupid.... this time.

Axiomatic statement: Nothing that has ever happened is impossible.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115593 May 15, 2013
HST, why do you keep mentioning monkeys and Shakespeare? Applying a form of selection to the problem makes it possible:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

Applying selection to chemistry makes abiogenesis possible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115594 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The Bible doesn't specify the species or, for that matter, that it was a whale. Like all evo-morons, you can't resist making unwarranted assumptions.

A whale would be more plausible than a fish, as I have previously noted. The digestion time for a fish is shorter than for a whale.

Of course surviving either, unprotected and without air) for 3 days is about as likely as surviving on Pluto under similar circumstances and for the same length of time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115595 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot logically defend abiogenesis by appeals to science.
The only line of defense you can present is that you think evolution occurred, therefore abiosgenesis must have occurred.
Your explanation has the appearance of science, but it isn't.
Spontaneous nucleotide phosphorylation and RNA oligopolimerization in abiotic conditions doesn't prove anything. It would be like suggesting that a monkey could type a Shakespearean play because you had documented that it could randomly type keys. No experiment has demonstrated that nucleotides could self organize into a genetic code. The observations you sited referred to random sequences of RNA nucleotides, NOT a genetic code. A monkey can randomly type keys. That does not mean he can compose Shakespeare. There's a big difference.

We know know abiogenesis occurred.

It has nothing to do with "random" anything. That is a classic creotard canard. Chemistry is not random except to the extent that chemicals are "randomly" brought into contact with one another (i.e. random = natural processes).

Good luck in your future endeavors.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115596 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HST, why do you keep mentioning monkeys and Shakespeare? Applying a form of selection to the problem makes it possible:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
Applying selection to chemistry makes abiogenesis possible.

He does it precisely because using nonsense is the only chance he has to "win".

Actually, creotards are losers from the get-go, but that is a different issue.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#115597 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HST, why do you keep mentioning monkeys and Shakespeare? Applying a form of selection to the problem makes it possible:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
Applying selection to chemistry makes abiogenesis possible.
You're so accustomed to parroting evo-dogma that you take no thought of what you're saying.
What sort of "selection" are you proposing can be applied to chemistry to result in a genetic code being created out of a random pool of molecules?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115598 May 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Magic has not yet been on my menu, but restricted reality is clearly on yours. Data often allows more than one "real" explanation. You pick the one you like, and proceed as if it is the only one. That is unreal!

More projection.

But, in fact, you are satisfied if something is possible (an nearly anything is possible) while we are looking at the most likely possibility. You don't care if the odds that your notion is correct is .00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000001 as long as you can say it is a possibility.

That is unreal.


HTS

Englewood, CO

#115599 May 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A whale would be more plausible than a fish, as I have previously noted. The digestion time for a fish is shorter than for a whale.
Of course surviving either, unprotected and without air) for 3 days is about as likely as surviving on Pluto under similar circumstances and for the same length of time.
Although I agree that a human could not survive for three days in the stomach of a whale {without divine intervention], I still think the Pluto analogy is over the top. You would be dead in seconds on Pluto. You would not be dead in seconds in the belly of a whale.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115600 May 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You presume stomach acid lethality and lack of oxygen details without confirming with data that there are no other possibilities. I don't because I'm not an expert in the pertinent fields and don't yet have the necessary data from which to draw a valid conclusion. Such realities never get in the way of your side's making categorical assertions, yet simultaneously proclaiming that science is never certain about anything. What's wrong with this reality?

Same thing again. Your bar is so low that you don't have to break stride to clear it. "...no other possibilities". Again, you are working at a statistical probability level of 10^-1000 and are perfectly happy with that.

What's wrong with this reality?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115601 May 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The same as you, no evidence for either side. I'm content with that. You don't seem to be. If that's so then provide the data to confirm your case as correct.

Again, no. Good evidence for the scientific side. No evidence for poof with magic.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#115602 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HST, why do you keep mentioning monkeys and Shakespeare? Applying a form of selection to the problem makes it possible:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
Applying selection to chemistry makes abiogenesis possible.
Do you seriously think you're making a valid point.
The link you provided referred to a computer program which took randomly selected keystrokes and compared them to Shakespeare's works. In other words, the selective device utilized had an end goal. Your post only proves my point... the only hypothetical selection device that you can imagine requires intelligence.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115603 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Although I agree that a human could not survive for three days in the stomach of a whale {without divine intervention], I still think the Pluto analogy is over the top. You would be dead in seconds on Pluto. You would not be dead in seconds in the belly of a whale.
But likely you would wish you were.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115604 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
This entire discussion is pointless.
Jonah being swallowed by a whale is only one of many miracles of the Bible that cannot be explained by appeals to known scientific laws. It is believed that a higher power exists, that can operate through laws that man does not understand. I find the parting of the Red Sea by Moses and Christ raising Lazarus from the dead much more difficult to explain in terms of known laws of science. Why is everyone fixating on Jonah?
You just hit the nail on the head with your first sentence:
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
This entire discussion is pointless.
The reason being your quite blatant admission of GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC, rendering scientific evidence UTTERLY superfluous to your position.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115605 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is nonsense from a scientific reality point.
Your only alternative is the magic "evolutiondidit" mantra. You assume that anything that you don't understand is "magic". Why do yo call miracles as recorded in the Bible as "magic" and you call spontaneous self-organization of DNA "science". You have unalterable FAITH that it occurred. That is religion.
I notice you're still dishonestly conflating evolution with abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

I'd go through the reasons again but you already know them, and have failed to address them since the very first time.

Same applies to every other fundie too, so at least you're not alone with your complete and total utter abject failure.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#115606 May 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We know know abiogenesis occurred.
It has nothing to do with "random" anything. That is a classic creotard canard. Chemistry is not random except to the extent that chemicals are "randomly" brought into contact with one another (i.e. random = natural processes).
Good luck in your future endeavors.
Of all the BS you've spewed, this surpasses everything
"We know how abiogenesis occurred"
Care to elaborate...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#115607 May 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You just hit the nail on the head with your first sentence:
<quoted text>
The reason being your quite blatant admission of GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC, rendering scientific evidence UTTERLY superfluous to your position.
I never said it was "magic"
Your EVOLUTIONDIDIT WITH PIXIE DUST dogma the only way you can explain anything, so you need to think before you hurl accusations.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Regolith Based Li... 205,551
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 7 min It aint necessari... 946
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 38 min Chimney1 43,441
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 18,719
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Tue Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Aug 28 Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Aug 27 One way or another 16
More from around the web