The Creationist Lie That Just Wont Die

[Skwim]

Here is a fairly recent review of the progress on abiogenesis research.

Geoscience Frontiers
Volume 9, Issue 4, July 2018, Pages 1117-1153
open access

Research Paper
Origins of building blocks of life: A review

​

​

Highlights
• This review includes the whole stage of chemical evolution of life.

• The availabilities of P and N on the early Earth were discussed.

• Geochemical and geological settings favorable for the life's origin are proposed.​

Abstract
How and where did life on Earth originate? To date, various environments have been proposed as plausible sites for the origin of life. However, discussions have focused on a limited stage of chemical evolution, or emergence of a specific chemical function of proto-biological systems. It remains unclear what geochemical situations could drive all the stages of chemical evolution, ranging from condensation of simple inorganic compounds to the emergence of self-sustaining systems that were evolvable into modern biological ones. In this review, we summarize reported experimental and theoretical findings for prebiotic chemistry relevant to this topic, including availability of biologically essential elements (N and P) on the Hadean Earth, abiotic synthesis of life's building blocks (amino acids, peptides, ribose, nucleobases, fatty acids, nucleotides, and oligonucleotides), their polymerizations to bio-macromolecules (peptides and oligonucleotides), and emergence of biological functions of replication and compartmentalization. It is indicated from the overviews that completion of the chemical evolution requires at least eight reaction conditions of (1) reductive gas phase, (2) alkaline pH, (3) freezing temperature, (4) fresh water, (5) dry/dry-wet cycle, (6) coupling with high energy reactions, (7) heating-cooling cycle in water, and (8) extraterrestrial input of life's building blocks and reactive nutrients. The necessity of these mutually exclusive conditions clearly indicates that life's origin did not occur at a single setting; rather, it required highly diverse and dynamic environments that were connected with each other to allow intra-transportation of reaction products and reactants through fluid circulation. Future experimental research that mimics the conditions of the proposed model are expected to provide further constraints on the processes and mechanisms for the origin of life.



Graphical abstract

1. Introduction
When, where, and how did life on Earth originate? These questions on the origin of life are among the biggest unsolved problems in natural science. Recent progress in geological research has provided significant constraints on . . . .
source and MUCH MORE

.

​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm afraid you do have that flaw, we all do. Everyone has faith in the truth of things they have not directly seen or experienced (and in the case of the origins of the universe--cannot personally see or experience). In your case, you have faith in a self-existent/self-created universe, self-existent/self-created laws of physics, self-created life which goes on to create from non-sentience the conscious human mind--none of which you have seen. I likewise believe in something that I cannot directly see or experience. Namely, the creation of the physical universe, the laws of physics and life itself by the Self-Existent, Eternal and Triune God of Scripture.

That is not correct. I have a trust that is based upon a record of success. And you need to learn a little bit more of what atheism is before making such claims about what one believes.

The difference between faith and logical acceptance of the sciences is that if something is shown to be wrong I will change my mind. People with faith tend not to be able to do that.

 

[WAS]

One can see immediately that your biology education is lacking. She did not say nor imply the evidence for "molecule to man evolution" was overwhelming. She said that there was evidence for abiogenesis. In fact the term "molecule to man evolution" is a bit self contradicting since abiogenesis and evolution are two separate but related fields.

But if you do have some scientific education then it should be easy to explain to you that there is only scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. Also as a lawyer you should be able to understand the concept of evidence. You are trying to employ a logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. In a court case just because one did not know what the suspect had for breakfast does not mean that he is innocent. There will always be some unknowns. It is the patterm of knows that point to evolution and only evolution.

I agree that my statement was not entirely clear in distinguishing abiogenesis and evolution. While I do believe that abiogenesis and evolution are inseperable--it would have been clearer if I had stated "single celled creature to man" evolution or something along those lines.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance. I believe the evidence supports special creation far better than it does a self-forming universe and self-forming life. I think you're confusing your logical fallacies with the question of what the suspect had for breakfast. That's a non-sequitur.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hello ChristineM. I'm a lawyer with a physics major, I'm not a biology major. That said, my studies ranged fairly broadly across the hard sciences. I'm not aware of any "overwhelming" evidence for molecule to man evolution. What is the overwhelming evidence that DNA/RNA copying errors in brainless sea sponges or nearly brainless comb jellies and their descendants (along with damage to DNA from cosmic rays, etc.) resulted in the conscious human mind?.

Here's 14 links to get you started-- your question indicates a severe lack of Biological Science education. So much so, it'd take $1000s of $$ to bring you up to Square One.

1) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/
7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
8) http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/
9) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

As for abiogenesis--it cannot be truly seperated from molecule to man evolution. .

Absolutely false claim-- Again, you demonstrate a basic and essential misunderstanding of what scientific evolution theory actually says-- it says nothing about the beginnings.

Both form necessary components of the naturalistic origins paradigm. .

Nope. Not even close.

Whether someone believes life arose spontaneously from non-life on earth or whether one believes in some form of panspermia, abiogenesis is the unavoidable necessity when working within a naturalistic origins paradigm. Panspermia is just an attempted escape mechanism from the difficulties of abiogenesis via infinite regression. However, it doesn't remove the abiogenesis dilemma. Extraterrestrial life itself must have originally arisen spontaneously from non-life.

There is no dilemma, except for what is within your mind.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree that my statement was not entirely clear in distinguishing abiogenesis and evolution. While I do believe that abiogenesis and evolution are inseperable--it would have been clearer if I had stated "single celled creature to man" evolution or something along those lines..

What you believe isn't credible, so there's that problem.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance. .

Actually? You most certainly are...

I believe the evidence supports special creation far better than it does a self-forming universe and self-forming life. .

See? Not credible. Zero evidence supporting your claim: none. nada. Not a single credible thing.

I think you're confusing your logical fallacies with the question of what the suspect had for breakfast. That's a non-sequitur.

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that my statement was not entirely clear in distinguishing abiogenesis and evolution. While I do believe that abiogenesis and evolution are inseperable--it would have been clearer if I had stated "single celled creature to man" evolution or something along those lines.

I'm not making an argument from ignorance. I believe the evidence supports special creation far better than it does a self-forming universe and self-forming life. I think you're confusing your logical fallacies with the question of what the suspect had for breakfast. That's a non-sequitur.

There is no evidence for special creation. That is the problem with the concept. There is evidence for abiogenesis. There is endless evidence for the theory of evolution. And evolution does not rely on abiogenesis at all. All it needs is some sort of abiogenesis event, but even you believe in that.

Perhaps we should go over the concept of evidence. For the sciences it is very well defined.

 

[WAS]

That is not correct. I have a trust that is based upon a record of success. And you need to learn a little bit more of what atheism is before making such claims about what one believes.

The difference between faith and logical acceptance of the sciences is that if something is shown to be wrong I will change my mind. People with faith tend not to be able to do that.

I have a fair degree of familiarity with atheism. As you trust in an alleged anti-theistic record of success, I trust that theism has a record of success. It's a matter of what you are placing your trust in.

Given my background in science (limited though it may be), I generally see no more willingness for people to change their deep-set opinions on matters of "science" (even when they are shown to be wrong) than I do in the theological realm. I would go further to say that what is called "science" (particularly in the area of origins) is actually more in the nature of religious assertions on ultimate things than truly scientific analysis and propositions. I do not believe that the evolution vs. creation debate is ultimately a question of science (although the scientific disciplines play an invaluable role as "expert witnesses" in the forensic analysis of origins). It is ultimately a question of competing religious beliefs. The various sub-beliefs (e.g. atheism, agnosticism, etc.) that fall under the larger umbrella of secular humanism have as their key uniting and necessary tenant--the naturalistic origins story. Those who adhere to this belief system dogmatically hold to the teaching of evolutionism--and I believe they will continue to hold to this because the strictly naturalistic origin paradigm requires it, regardless of what the evidence says.

I'm will have to continue this discussion at a (much) later time because of work schedule. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's slow down a little bit. The reason that I can say is that there is no evidence for creationism is because creationists do not follow the scientific method:

That is a highly simplified but still essentially correct flowchart of the scientific method. The reason that there is no evidence for creationism is that they stop at step two. They will not form a testable hypothesis. Whenever I ask a creationist what reasonable test could possibly show their ideas to be wrong they either give me a blank stare or ask why they would want to do that. Nonoe of them that I have seen are willing to put their ideas to the test. That means that by definition they are not doing science.

And as to scientific evidence, at the very least one needs a testable hypothesis first:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[WAS]

What you believe isn't credible, so there's that problem.



Actually? You most certainly are...


See? Not credible. Zero evidence supporting your claim: none. nada. Not a single credible thing.



Nope.

Hello Bob, you appear to simply be asserting the contrary to everything I say. I understand the necessity for this--because of limited time I am likewise constrained to basically saying you're wrong, I'm right. Hopefully, I'll have time to return to this thread in the not too distant future (although it could be a month or more).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a fair degree of familiarity with atheism. As you trust in an alleged anti-theistic record of success, I trust that theism has a record of success. It's a matter of what you are placing your trust in.

Given my background in science (limited though it may be), I generally see no more willingness for people to change their deep-set opinions on matters of "science" (even when they are shown to be wrong) than I do in the theological realm. I would go further to say that what is called "science" (particularly in the area of origins) is actually more in the nature of religious assertions on ultimate things than truly scientific analysis and propositions. I do not believe that the evolution vs. creation debate is ultimately a question of science (although the scientific disciplines play an invaluable role as "expert witnesses" in the forensic analysis of origins). It is ultimately a question of competing religious beliefs. The various sub-beliefs (e.g. atheism, agnosticism, etc.) that fall under the larger umbrella of secular humanism have as their key uniting and necessary tenant--the naturalistic origins story. Those who adhere to this belief system dogmatically hold to the teaching of evolutionism--and I believe they will continue to hold to this because the strictly naturalistic origin paradigm requires it, regardless of what the evidence says.

I'm will have to continue this discussion at a (much) later time because of work schedule. Thanks for the discussion.

You seriously do not have a firm grip on atheism. Your statements show that. That is like someone that was never a Christian claiming that they were familiar with Christianity. For example you separated atheism from agnosticism when most agnostics are atheists. And secular humanism is more of an approach to behavior than a religious beliefs. Secular humanists can be Christians, Muslims, Jews and atheists. Also you use of scare quotes only confirms my earlier claim that you likely did not understand the concept of evidence, at least in the sciences. Legal evidence is probably another matter altogether,

There is no rush here. If you have to go you have to go. Whenever you wish to discuss this you will find people willing to respond.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Bob, you appear to simply be asserting the contrary to everything I say. I understand the necessity for this--because of limited time I am likewise constrained to basically saying you're wrong, I'm right. Hopefully, I'll have time to return to this thread in the not too distant future (although it could be a month or more).

To be fair one of his posts had quite a few sources linked. Once again take your time. Go over the articles. No one is going to demand that you change your mind tonight.

 

[WAS]

Here is a fairly recent review of the progress on abiogenesis research.

Thanks for the article Skwim. I'm aware of the more recent experiments, the analysis has not changed--we are nowhere near contradicting the law of biogenesis. That said, if we are ever able to accomplish this feat, it will only be through a great deal of intelligent design on the part of the scientists. Finally, as I mentioned in my post to the other posters on the thread, I'll have to cut the conversation short for the time being--thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[Skwim]

Thanks for the article Skwim. I'm aware of the more recent experiments, the analysis has not changed--we are nowhere near contradicting the law of biogenesis. That said, if we are ever able to accomplish this feat, it will only be through a great deal of intelligent design on the part of the scientists. Finally, as I mentioned in my post to the other posters on the thread, I'll have to cut the conversation short for the time being--thanks for the interesting discussion.

Just had to slip that sucker in, didn't you.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the article Skwim. I'm aware of the more recent experiments, the analysis has not changed--we are nowhere near contradicting the law of biogenesis. That said, if we are ever able to accomplish this feat, it will only be through a great deal of intelligent design on the part of the scientists. Finally, as I mentioned in my post to the other posters on the thread, I'll have to cut the conversation short for the time being--thanks for the interesting discussion.

The "Law of biogenesis" does not apply. Scientific laws are usually not universal. They are of limited scope.

EDIT: And wow! I missed that line about "intelligent design". That was not an appropriate remark at all and only shows a lack of knowledge of how they test their concepts. Why do creationists do that? Those sort of claims lead to others calling them "liars". Let's try to avoid that.

 

[WAS]

You seriously do not have a firm grip on atheism. Your statements show that. That is like someone that was never a Christian claiming that they were familiar with Christianity. For example you separated atheism from agnosticism when most agnostics are atheists. And secular humanism is more of an approach to behavior than a religious beliefs. Secular humanists can be Christians, Muslims, Jews and atheists. Also you use of scare quotes only confirms my earlier claim that you likely did not understand the concept of evidence, at least in the sciences. Legal evidence is probably another matter altogether,

There is no rush here. If you have to go you have to go. Whenever you wish to discuss this you will find people willing to respond.

Before I call it quits on the thread--I wanted to reply briefly to your last statement. I realize that the terms "atheist", "agnostic", "secular humanist", etc. can have different meanings/applications. Further, I do not disagree that there are many who identify as "Christian" and many who belong formally to other religious faiths that align more closely with "secular humanism" (e.g. as it has been laid out informally in countless writings and more formally in various humanist creeds) than they do, for instance, with traditional Christianity. As a Bible-believing Christian I would refer to this as religious syncretism.

As for the scare quotes--they are particularly in reference to the evolutionary assertions arising from certain underlying and unfounded assumptions which I do not count as legitimate scientific evidence (in contrast with the solid scientific evidence that we have for special relativity, for instance).

Thanks again for the discussion and have a great evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Before I call it quits on the thread--I wanted to reply briefly to your last statement. I realize that the terms "atheist", "agnostic", "secular humanist", etc. can have different meanings/applications. Further, I do not disagree that there are many who identify as "Christian" and many who belong formally to other religious faiths that align more closely with "secular humanism" (e.g. as it has been laid out informally in countless writings and more formally in various humanist creeds) than they do, for instance, with traditional Christianity. As a Bible-believing Christian I would refer to this as religious syncretism.

As for the scare quotes--they are particularly in reference to the evolutionary assertions arising from certain underlying and unfounded assumptions which I do not count as legitimate scientific evidence (in contrast with the solid scientific evidence that we have for special relativity, for instance).

Thanks again for the discussion and have a great evening.

Once again you only demonstrate a lack of understanding of evidence. There are clear standards as to what is and what is not evidence. That keeps irrational people from claiming a lack of evidence. By the way the strongest evidence for evolution is currently DNA. The same science that allows a person to be identified as being at the scene of a crime by the DNA that they left behind is the same evidence that tells us how you are I are related to others apes and all life itself. If you reject the evidence that you are an ape then you have to reject the evidence that tells us that a rapist at the very least had sex with a victim.

One more point, if you make certain claims you are going to have to defend them. You don't just get to claim "certain underlying and unfounded assumptions which I do not count as legitimate scientific evidence (in contrast with the solid scientific evidence" unless you can specifically name the unfounded assumptions and explain why they are not valid. Remember, when you make a positive assertion that puts the burden of proof upon you. Don't worry, if I make such a claim the burden of proof is upon me as well.

 

[ChristineM]

Hello ChristineM. I'm a lawyer with a physics major, I'm not a biology major. That said, my studies ranged fairly broadly across the hard sciences. I'm not aware of any "overwhelming" evidence for molecule to man evolution. What is the overwhelming evidence that DNA/RNA copying errors in brainless sea sponges or nearly brainless comb jellies and their descendants (along with damage to DNA from cosmic rays, etc.) resulted in the conscious human mind?

As for abiogenesis--it cannot be truly seperated from molecule to man evolution. Both form necessary components of the naturalistic origins paradigm. Whether someone believes life arose spontaneously from non-life on earth or whether one believes in some form of panspermia, abiogenesis is the unavoidable necessity when working within a naturalistic origins paradigm. Panspermia is just an attempted escape mechanism from the difficulties of abiogenesis via infinite regression. However, it doesn't remove the abiogenesis dilemma. Extraterrestrial life itself must have originally arisen spontaneously from non-life.

Fossil evidence, homologies, distribution, example, shared traits, dna.

Abiogenesis can absolutely be separated from evolution of life in that no life existed prior to abiogenesis.

As for dilemma? What dilemma? Life has been created three times (that i am aware of) in the laboratory using 3 different methods, it seems life from none life is really quite easy when you get conditions right.

ET is not my problem

 

[ChristineM]

Hello again, I'm not aware of any experiments that have kick started life from non-life. The Miller-Urey experiment, and similar experiments haven't come close to creating life from non-life. There is effectively an infinite gap between the amino acids created in the Miller experiment and the incredible complexity of even the simplest single-celled organism.

The Miller-Urey experiment is old hat, i did it at school many years ago. Can i suggest you look up more up to date work of Craig Ventner, Floyd Romesberg and John Sutherland and educate your self in some biology.

I also think you need to understand the difference between infinite and steps along the way.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hello Bob, you appear to simply be asserting the contrary to everything I say. I understand the necessity for this--because of limited time I am likewise constrained to basically saying you're wrong, I'm right. Hopefully, I'll have time to return to this thread in the not too distant future (although it could be a month or more).

Nope. Claims made without any evidence, require nothing more than: "no".

You even admitted that your view is based on faith: you said "I believe---".

That's not how reality works. Reality doesn't care what you believe or don't believe.

Gravity will pull you down from a high place just the same, if you think you were made of helium or marshmallow peeps or human flesh: gravity pulls all the same, without considering what they believe in.

Creationism? Has not one iota of fact in support of it's claims. This is why it's simply rejected out of hand.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Thanks for the article Skwim. I'm aware of the more recent experiments, the analysis has not changed--we are nowhere near contradicting the law of biogenesis. That said, if we are ever able to accomplish this feat, it will only be through a great deal of intelligent design on the part of the scientists. Finally, as I mentioned in my post to the other posters on the thread, I'll have to cut the conversation short for the time being--thanks for the interesting discussion.

What is "law of biogenesis"? Is that even a real thing?

As for life from non-life?

We do that all the time: you eat dead things, including inert minerals. Your body takes non-life, and creates more of you: life.

Not that big a deal, really... it's just organic chemistry, really. All life is just organic chemistry.

But here's something to consider:

Scientists, in a lab, took a cell and killed it. That is, they removed all the nuclear DNA, rendering the cell as dead as a rock.

Next, using the natural self-assembling properties of complex organic molecules, they fabricated up some artificial DNA. From scratch. Using a computer program, to made the DNA sequences.

Next, they inserted the artificial DNA into the dead cell. Note-- at no time was lightning involved in any step of the process, Dr Frankenstein notwithstanding.

Finally, they waited-- and what'ya know? The dead cell, with 100% artificial DNA, was alive-- it reproduced. It continued to do so, until they stopped the process, for safety reasons.

The artificial cell exhibited one of the properties scientists built into it's DNA: It glowed. All it's daughter cells faithfully glowed as well.

The experiment proved several things:

## life from non-life is not only possible, it's actually not that hard
## bring dead cells back to life is possible
## it's possible to create 100% artificial DNA-- and have it work. The implications of *that* are literally astounding.

Imagine a human baby, who was sporting 100% artificial DNA, who's every aspect was designed from the get-go?

It appears this could be quite possible, even with today's technology.... ! Yes, it would take years to put the DNA together, and there would likely be hundreds of fails (or more)...

... but when has that stopped a certain sort of researcher?

Interesting Times.

Note: My mentioning the above, is not in any way an automatic endorsement. I'm keeping those thoughts to myself, for now. But just imagine a world completely free of ALL DNA-based diseases.... !

Science: Doing what god refuses* to do, from the outset...







* or simply cannot do, for having a crisis of existence problem.