Evolutionary biology THE MYTH

[MerlinsByte]

Evolutionary biology is a myth supported by flawed science. How so? Read on. All evolutionary scientists agree that life arose from a chemicals that existed on the young earth of 3-4.8 billion years ago. A Frankenstein of Primordial goo formed by natural chemical interactions and became life by a series of random events chemical bonding, etc., lets examine the true facts.

If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find evidence somewhere on this planet either in massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or in the geological strata.

large amounts of graphite-like nitrogen-containing materials should be abundant as any mineral. No such materials that meet the critera of carbon / nitrogenous organics have been found anywhere on earth. If this goo existed in the early earth in the quanity need to produce life, where is it? It should be as plentiful as coal and oil,or any earth element including metals.

There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted long enough to produce life.

Spontaneous generation of life in nature, without a (intelligent) controlling factor such as a Creator, is a long shot at best, or in my view , very near a mathematical impossibility.

In 1953, when Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced several amino acids by applying electricity and ultraviolet light to a mixture of select gases, no proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides or lipids, for the simplest life were produced!

I am not aware of these "building blocks of life" being synthesized anywhere in the world under any type of controlled environmental conditions. Nor have scientists been able to produce the 50 or so small organic compounds from which these four primary construction materials are made.

If we can't produce this with all of our intelligence, technology and with controlled environmental factors, it is ignorat to think any of this could come about by random chance. If we could by our intelligence produce any of this, this would support a Creator, not random events, that is not without a built in intellegence or outside intellegence supervising these events.

These are just a few of the reason the origin of life could not happen by evolutionary standard that are accepted a fact today. Question evolution! It is a faith based religion that rivals any myth.



mb

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Evolutionary biology is a myth supported by flawed science. How so? Read on. All evolutionary scientists agree that life arose from a chemicals that existed on the young earth of 3-4.8 billion years ago. A Frankenstein of Primordial goo formed by natural chemical interactions and became life by a series of random events chemical bonding, etc., lets examine the true facts. If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find evidence somewhere on this planet either in massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or in the geological strata. large amounts of graphite-like nitrogen-containing materials should be abundant as any mineral. No such materials that meet the critera of carbon / nitrogenous organics have been found anywhere on earth. If this goo existed in the early earth in the quanity need to produce life, where is it? It should be as plentiful as coal and oil,or any earth element including metals.

Abiogenesis is not part of the evolution theory. Now I'm not the most observant person but why would the Earth of today look like that of the past? What is the basis of this?

Quote by: MerlinsByte There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted long enough to produce life.

You haven't shown me any.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Spontaneous generation of life in nature, without a (intelligent) controlling factor such as a Creator, is a long shot at best, or in my view , very near a mathematical impossibility.

Show me the mathematics of this and I want to know every step in the calculation and the reasoning behind it.

Quote by: MerlinsByte In 1953, when Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced several amino acids by applying electricity and ultraviolet light to a mixture of select gases, no proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides or lipids, for the simplest life were produced!

Do you actually know what was produced in this experiment? Name them, that'll be your homework for tonight.

Quote by: MerlinsByte I am not aware of these "building blocks of life" being synthesized anywhere in the world under any type of controlled environmental conditions. Nor have scientists been able to produce the 50 or so small organic compounds from which these four primary construction materials are made.

If you give me a billion years and the surface area of Earth as the laboratory, I'd show you.
Now if you're in an academic institution or you've subscribed, you can access this article.

Quote by: MerlinsByte If we can't produce this with all of our intelligence, technology and with controlled environmental factors, it is ignorat to think any of this could come about by random chance. If we could by our intelligence produce any of this, this would support a Creator, not random events, that is not without a built in intellegence or outside intellegence supervising these events.

So, just because we can't reproduce something means it can't happen and therefore it is an act of god? mm, alright, I see where you're coming from... no wait, that's just absurd. You might lead weight that it is not likely to o

Quote by: MerlinsByte These are just a few of the reason the origin of life could not happen by evolutionary standard that are accepted a fact today. Question evolution! It is a faith based religion that rivals any myth. mb

I'm afraid your lack of intelligence has excelled your usual self. I've already told you, abiogenesis, of which you claim to be impossible is not part of the evolutionary theory that was proposed by Charles Darwin and refined by other biologist for the past 150 years. Evolution deals with what happens from the first cell, be it created by god or by "random" events, it is for the most part irrelevant.
Your argument is nothing more than a sham, it doesn't actually address evolution.

[MerlinsByte]

By Pooeypants... Abiogenists is not part of the evolution theory. Now I'm not the most observant person but why would the Earth of today look like that of the past? What is the basis of this?

Merlin..... Ok I'm not going to lower myself to derogatory comments (well not too much) that you seem addicted to. Maybe it is a defense mechanism like denial, and its understandable. I would be in denial also trying to defend a fraud like evolution.

Try to read this with an open mind pooey pants. My responses will be too long for one post (I don’t want to lose anyone, you still with me Pooey?) so I will address these one at a time.

biogenesis is not part of the evolution theory. ?

Did you actually read my post? Ok maybe you simply have difficult time grasping the English language? I I will once again make things easier for you.

I said (in effect) “Most (or all) evolutionary biologists agree that abiogenists is a fact.”

Pooey, if you don’t subscribe to this holy grail of evolutionary science, the rest of evolutionary theory might as well be discarded, including biological evolutionary theory spawned from (the) almost unrecognizable theory as put forth by Charles Darwin. (Origin of the species (by natural selection)

Pooey scribbles…

Now I'm not the most observant person but why would the Earth of today look like that of the past? What is the basis of this?

I’ll take a wild guess and assume you are referring to the geological evidence for the organic chemicals?
Let me know and I will respond.


mb

[Pooeypants]

Okay, let me put this to you in the most simple way, I'll even draw a diagram later if you fail to understand.

Evolution theory = Origin of species
Abiogenesis = Origin of Life.

If Abiogenesis is a myth, it DOES NOT invalidate Evolution, because Evolution is independent of abiogenesis, it occurs after life has occured. How that first life came about doesn't matter, as long as it does.

So your attack is still a sham.

Quote by: MB Pooey, if you don’t subscribe to this holy grail of evolutionary science, the rest of evolutionary theory might as well be discarded, including biological evolutionary theory spawned from (the) almost unrecognizable theory as put forth by Charles Darwin. (Origin of the species (by natural selection)

Abiogenesis is not the holy grail of evolutionary science, it will merely be an icing on top, we know that evolution occurs, that all the diversity of life can be explained through naturalistic reasons.

Darwin's original papers still hold true for most of today's science, the only difference being that it has been refined and reinforced, the discoverer of genes and genetic material for example, explained how characteristics can be inherited by the progeny.

If all you've got to attack evolution is on a developing hypothesis adjacent to it then you've already lost. Come back when you have a credible argument.

[MerlinsByte]

merlin sez...By the graph I am referring to the first graph not the second well thought diagram. ; } >

[MerlinsByte]

...by pooeypants....If Abiogenesis is a myth, it DOES NOT invalidate Evolution, because Evolution is independent of abiogenesis, it occurs after life has occured. How that first life came about doesn't matter, as long as it does.

Merlin replies...OK we may be making progress, pooeypants. I truly hope that we are, and I will agree to stop with the put downs if you will reciprocate? I honestly think we may have some common ground.

I'm not sure if you agree with aiogensis or not but from the flavor of your responses I assume that you have some doubts about it. Can you tell me where you think that life started evolving, I realize that your graph is self explanatory but it leaves too much room for interpretation. By life I mean self replicating critters.


mb

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte OK we may be making progress, pooeypants. I truly hope that we are, and I will agree to stop with the put downs if you will reciprocate? I honestly think we may have some common ground. OK I'm not sure if you agree with aiogensis or not but from the flavor of your responses I assume that you have some doubts about it. Can you tell me where you think that life started evolving, I realize that your graph is self explanatory but it leaves too much room for interpretation. By life I mean self replicating critters. mb

Evolution occurs chemically and biologically, the Evolution by natural selection by Charles Darwin covers biological evolution, it can be applied to the very first cell, most likely a bacteria. Now the transition between chemical and biological evolution is hard to see, especially if you look inside cells and see they what happens there.

If you're still interested in abiogenesis, here are a few gentle articles, surely they're mainly to refute ridiculous creationists arguments but they're also very education.

Also, I'll reiterate, abiogenesis is still under research, it a hypothesis whereas evolution is a certified scientific theory.

[Sonart]

Spontaneous generation of life in nature, without a (intelligent) controlling factor such as a Creator, is a long shot at best, or in my view , very near a mathematical impossibility.

I'm reminded of Steven Hawking's discussion about the Big Bang and creation. Based on the conventional wisdom of that day, that the Universe would expand until gravity slowed it to a stop and eventually collapsed the Universe back on itself, Hawking figured, based on our best estimates of the time it took from the Big Bang to the creation of our solar system and life on earth, that the probability of events arriving at this point randomly was simply too astronomical to consider anything other than intelligent design. Had the Universe expanded a nano-second faster or a nano-second slowly, life on earth would never have developed, since the Universe would have already been too spread apart to sustain life, or have already collapsed back. The billion-to-one probability of just the precise, exact amount of expansion occuring was simply unacceptable.

In fact, Hawking went on, the only conceivable way of life on earth forming as it did within a realistic probability, relative to the Big Bang, would be if the Universe were not only expanding, but accelerating, which at the time of his writing, no one was suggesting.

But which we have discovered in the last five years is exactly the case.

The point being that we don't know yet what we don't know. What we do know is that the longer we keep digging and exploring, the more we find out, and what we're constantly finding out is that there are perfectly rational explanations for what happens in nature.

Quote by: Merlin'sByte Did you actually read my post? Ok maybe you simply have difficult time grasping the English language? I I will once again make things easier for you.

Actually, what you said was, "Evolutionary biology is a myth supported by flawed science." A pretty blanket statement. You then followed with, "All evolutionary scientists agree that life arose from a chemicals that existed on the young earth of 3-4.8 billion years ago." Another blanket statement.

So, what are we to make of your rather snooty response to Pooey's measured post -- "Ok I'm not going to lower myself to derogatory comments (well not too much) that you seem addicted to. Maybe it is a defense mechanism like denial, and its understandable. I would be in denial also trying to defend a fraud like evolution."

I make this.... you assault evolutionary biology as "myth supported by flawed science". The problem being, however, that the evidence supporting the evolution of life on earth, along the lines of Darwin's theory, is becoming so overwhelming that it's basically impossible to argue with.

So you attack abiogenisis instead, based on what we haven't found yet and your assumption of what we should have found. Thus, if abiogenisis is wrong and evolution science leans towards abiogenisis, then isn't the entirety of evolutionary theory also wrong, despite the preponderance of evidence? This is clearly a logical fallacy, since neither abiogenisis or evolution requires the other to be true in order for itself to be true.


.

[MerlinsByte]

Hawking went on, the only conceivable way of life on earth forming as it did within a realistic probability, relative to the Big Bang, would be if the Universe were not only expanding, but accelerating, which at the time of his writing, no one was suggesting.

Hawking who sits in the same chair that Newton did is one of my heroes as is Einstein.

The universe is accelerating because there is not enough mass (the so called missing mass) and some other unknown force. I love astronomy and cosmology. Now, If hawking is saying that the accelerating universe has bestowed more time for evolutionary theory, then he is agreeing with me that there isn't enough time for life to form, without some major modifications to the fraudulent theory of evolution.

More time would be the only way that I would even give a half nod of approval to evolutionary theory as it is written. Great minds think alike, I didn't know I was in such esteemed company thanks Stephen!

mb


I happen to agree with some aspects of evolutionary biology. Mr. phooey jumps to conclusions such as that I reject all science.

I happen to question the gaps in evolutionary biology such as the gap from when the first non organic chemicals became organic (carbon based then nitrogenized) then...jump a huge gap where the organic chemicals combined to form RNA and DNA etc then leaped to replicating proto life such as virus and the 1000x bigger bacteria. I reject the idea that bacteria morphed into photosynthesizing plant cells then to sexually dividing cells then to these cells morphing into an aquatic multi celled creature, then the the flight of fantasy when this morphed into an amphibian then to a lungfish to a reptile to a dinosaur to a bird or reptile to a human.

Man, are these scientists sampling LSD when writing this swill? Its worse than ignorant to believe this BS...Excuse me, pooey learn to think for yourself and snap out of that denial, ....My tolerance for your self imposed ignorance isn't my forte.

mb

Oh and one more thing for those of you that do not agree that Abiogenesis is an interregnal part of biological evolutionary theory read on


excerpt from ; Biology Cabinet Organization/ scientific research and education on Biology

"Many creationists insist on separate the process of Abiogenesis from the process of Evolution; however, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Abiogenesis is the origin of evolution. (emphasis mine)

Evolution always occurs at a molecular level and it is manifested at a macroscopic level of any given biosystem. Since the process of Abiogenesis was the beginning of a purely-chemical evolution of biomolecules and life is merely a quantum state of matter, we can provide, without a bit of doubt, evidence on the fact that Abiogenesis was the starting point in the Evolution of those molecular structures grouped as living beings."

http://www.biocab.org/Origin_of_Life.html

[MerlinsByte]

Pooey here just a graph that is just as likely as evolution to have happened. Much more likely and has as much tangible evidence as biological evolution does, which is none.



Earth 3 billion BCE> visitors or intelligent input, carbon based precursors applied.

Earth (a guess) 2.5 billion BCE> visitors or intelligent input (VIP) proto life virus etc installed on earth

Earth 1 billion years BCE> VIP genetic manipulation of life on earth, green plants and sexual division (meiosis) introduced

Earth 900 million BCE> VIP Phylum’s introduced

Earth 900-100,000 BCE> VIP various experiments man introduced around one million BCE

Earth 200,000 to 100,000 BCE> VIP man receives self-awareness and a sentient or a soul.

Earth 100,000 BCE 5000 BCE> VIP religions (knowledge) introduced

mb

[Trotsky]

"Bacteria morphing into photosynthesising multicelular organisms"...............there was me thinking that a wide number of bacteria actually had the ability to photosynthesise......also I was also (maybe misguided) of the opionion that Abiogenesis was different to evolution....as one describes the begining of life and one describes the development of the different species.


I see our friend here is an I.D.er. Yes more tangible that an intelligent designer popped in to say hello and designed us all rather than evolution???

As for your comments about scientists popping pills etc.........correct me if I'm wrong but don't most religions have their links to higher beingsbrought about by chemical induced mind alteredstates??

[MerlinsByte]

BY TROTSKY...Bacteria morphing into photosynthesising multicelular organisms"...............there was me thinking that a wide number of bacteria actually had the ability to photosynthesise......also I was also (maybe misguided) of the opionion that Abiogenesis was different to evolution....as one describes the begining of life and one describes the development of the different species.

Merlin smiles and sez....".Well, the was list was akin to a parody to show how evolutionary biology couldn't explain the gaps in different transactions that E. biology must overcome to be a viable theory. I see that abstract thinking is beyond you and pooey " I will take note of that and attempt to dumb down my posts somewhat, or send "you all" a PM or E mail written in a 1st or 2nd grade level. Would like that trotsky? i might even arrange you a pacifier like a evoultion to suck on. All babies need thier passys.

BY TROTSKY...also I was also (maybe misguided) of the opionion that Abiogenesis was different to evolution....as one describes the begining of life and one describes the development of the different species.

Merlin patiently sez...read post #9 again (if you have read it to begin with re read it, ahhh'... the part demonstrating that abiogenesis is an integral part of E biology

mb

[MerlinsByte]

BY TROTSKY... I see our friend here is an I.D.er. Yes more tangible that an intelligent designer popped in to say hello and designed us all rather than evolution???

Merlin ....Yes, an ID intervening is much more , so very much more logical than all of E. Biology as it is written and generally accepted in mainstream scientific circles today.

Now if you could shoe horn a couple quint trillion years extra just for E biology (not including stellar evolution and evolution of the universe) I might (but doubt it) be more open to the possibility that I am an example of random mutations and other chance events, You and pooey might be the exception, that would be somwhat believable!

mb

[MerlinsByte]

BY TROTSKY..As for your comments about scientists popping pills etc.........correct me if I'm wrong but don't most religions have their links to higher beingsbrought about by chemical induced mind alteredstates?

Merlin sez....I wrote....." are these scientists sampling LSD when writing this swill? " Hey there Trotsky, it was tongue in cheek. Again I must hold your hand when you cross the mean street of adult debate. Next time I should let you play on the interstate of intense criticism


mb

[Trotsky]

How how how is ID more tangible? more logical than evolutionary biology?? There is NO EVIDENCE to support ID what-so-ever, creationists realised they were fighting a loosing battle and then this Intelligent being appeared, God/Jehovah/Allah disappeared out of the picture and some random supreme intelligence just decided to randomly create life and direct its evolution???? Or did you not know that evolution is an intricate part of this new theory of intelligent design...that the designer programmed life to evolve as it did??

And as for you directing me to previous posts to see that Abiogenesis is an integral part of biological evolution...its not....the scientific world CANNOT agree on abiogenesis but they agree on evolutionary biology......and before your circular little mind says it "THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Its the same thing with the Big Bang......nobody at this point understands how it happened...but they understand what happened afterwards and what is currently happening now........or in your little world do you deny that too? :rolleyes:

[Lilith]

Is it true that there is only a 2% gap in our DNA and a chimpanzee's?

And Trostky....I like your sig...

[Sonart]

Quote by: Merlinesbyte Merlin ....Yes, an ID intervening is much more , so very much more logical than all of E.

More logical to whom? To me it's completely without logic. It's a logic that declares that everything we now understand about the earth and the universe beyond complies to what we now know of the laws of physics and nature... with the exception of those things we don't understand, which we therefore declare to be free of the laws of physics and nature and explainable by supernatural magic. That's not logic, that's comforting rationalization.

What's more, it's a waning rationalization. For millenia, humans did not understand the fundamental laws of nature... what made crops grow, why did the sun rise and set, what controlled the seasons and the weather? Their explanation? The gods control everything. Yes, of course... I feel better already. And as Trotsky points out, the more we learned about the world around us, the less we required the supernatural to explain it, until we arrive at the present, in which God is reduced to some vague, undefined 'Designer' in order to rationalize some inherent need to attribute supernatural causes to what we don't know with what we now do know.

Quote by: Merlinsbyte Now, If hawking is saying that the accelerating universe has bestowed more time for evolutionary theory, then he is agreeing with me that there isn't enough time for life to form, without some major modifications to the fraudulent theory of evolution.

Hawking was saying nothing of the kind. He's conceding that it took exactly as much time as it took from the Big Bang for our solar system to form, for the earth to form and for life on earth to get to where it is, based on what science estimates that time to be. What he was saying was that the probability of the Universe expanding to the exact point amenable to life on earth, of both arriving at the exact window at the same time, was exceedingly improbable based on the expanding/contracting universe model. With an accelerating Universe, that window becomes exponentially wider, and the probability of the Universe expanding to a point amenable to life at the same point in time where life does develop on earth becomes acceptable. He makes absolutely no conjecture about whether life required more or less time to develop as it has.

Quote by: Merlinsbyte Excuse me, pooey learn to think for yourself and snap out of that denial....My tolerance for your self imposed ignorance isn't my forte.

Just a tad arrogant, don't you think? Who's in denial here? The person who's thinking adapts to new information, or the person who denies new information because it conflicts with pre-scientific dogma based on poetry?

Quote by: Merlinsbyte Would like that trotsky? i might even arrange you a pacifier like a evoultion to suck on. All babies need thier passys.

Go to hell.

.

[MerlinsByte]

By Merlin replying to Trotsky...Would like that Trotsky? I might even arrange you a pacifier like an evolution to suck on. All babies need their passys.

Sonart .... Go to hell.

merlin.........Ahhh, Sonart are you and Trotsky one and the same? I was addressing Trotsky.

I don't believe in hell, so can I go to heaven instead? And Sonart I am arrogant , narcissistic and a jerk when provoked. I will finish anything that someone starts. I never start insults, arrogant ,yes but personal insults and name calling no.

mb

.

[MerlinsByte]

Its the same thing with the Big Bang......nobody at this point understands how it happened...but they understand what happened afterwards and what is currently happening now........or in your little world do you deny that too?

A theory is a theory is a theory is a theory... do I need to repeat that? OK a theory is a theory. Evolution of the species is a ...you guessed it a theory. Therefore not being a fact that means what guys? It means that it could be wrong. Uh huh that's right, wrong it could be. Just as the geologist that first proposed plate tectonics was ridiculed so goes it with anyone that happens not to believe frauds like evolution of the species. Remember what a theory is?

BTW any one of you sweekey' Klean' evolutionist's seen a piltdown man lately? Might as wel try that hoax again. You know the fraudulent fake humanoid fossil that was science fact for 40 years?

MB

[MerlinsByte]

By Lilith... Is it true that there is only a 2% gap in our DNA and a chimpanzee's?

Merlin ...yes its true and some estimates are as high as 99%

DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

mb