Oh, the antics of the creationist!
Yes - you declared very confidently that NONE were creationists.
Cute that you left that part off.
No idea what this stream-of-consciousness dribble is supposed to mean. A dodge, I suppose.
Your mere layman assertions are lame.
Lots of obfuscation and a lame claim of vindication, but I expect no less from desperate and under-informed creationists.
In creationland, it seems, declaring that NOBODY associated with something were creationists when they were, in fact, creationists is no big deal. Sure, it totally overturns the impetus for declaring them non-creationists in the first place, but hey - what is a little weaseling among bible lovers?
Things that Johnny Browbeater ignored:
"I find it very meaningful that Miller was able to produce bio-organic compounds from multiple versions of what the early atmosphere was thought to be like, and even to do so in water.
I find it very meaningful that Hazen's group has shown that the abiotic generation of bio-organic molecules under any number of conditions is possible, to include demonstrating that molecules of specific chiralities will adhere preferentially to certain minerals.
All of these things were denied
in toto by creationists (and many rational chemists and biologists) until they were shown to be possible. Many creationists still deny even these - but most just retreat to the next level of goal-post-shifting."
"
I just google 'Koonins threshold' and the first meaningful return was to Dutch biologist Gert Korthof's site, where he reviewed Koonin's book in 2013. Actually he only reviewed chapter 12, because:
"In this review I focus on a spectacular claim in chapter 12 and Appendix B that sets it apart from the rest of the book and from the opinion of almost every evolutionary biologist. For this review I ignore the rest of the book. So this is not a review of the book (impossible anyway)."
Claims you find compelling for reasons that I can guess at, of course. I won't refer to much of Korthof's review, but for his closing statement:
"For, extraordinary claims should be build on very well researched evidence.
Finally, why not do an experiment? If only 13 RNA molecules with a total length of 1,800 nucleotides are necessary, it should not be that difficult to synthesize them and bring in the right chemical environment and observe the origin of life. If sequences are not (precisely) known, why not start with random sequences? That could verify or falsify Koonin's theory."
You like Koonin's speculation because it fits your worldview (I guess, not sure how).
Looking forward to that interview with Miller in which he does a 180 on his experiments."
"In an interview in 1996, Miller states:
"In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that
you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions...The experiments were done in Urey's lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, "I'd like to do those experiments". The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks."
Weird - I have a hard time believing that this fellow would, within a few years (before dying 9 years later), have an about-face and claim his experiments failed.
Also note that it is clear that the goal was not to create life. I suspect your YEC sources are just the usual charlatans and propagandists I have concluded nearly all of them are. But I am sure you will be able to produce this interview and will be from a legitimate source."
"And then there
is this:
Stanley Miller, the chemist whose landmark experiment published in 1953 showed how some of the molecules of life could have formed on a young Earth, left behind boxes of experimental samples that he never analyzed. The first-ever analysis of some of Miller's old samples has revealed another way that important molecules could have formed on early Earth....
In the new study, scientists analyzed samples from an experiment Miller performed in 1958. To the reaction flask, Miller added a chemical that at the time wasn't widely thought to have been available on early Earth. The reaction had successfully formed peptides, the new study found. The new study also successfully replicated the experiment and explained why the reaction works.
"It was clear that the results from this old experiment weren't some sort of artifact. They were real," said Jeffrey Bada, distinguished professor of marine chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the UC San Diego. Bada was a former student and colleague of Miller's."
"Define "information" in a biologically relevant way."
NIce to post this, but I have read it . I have posted elsewhere about the retro look at Millers samples, and the new discovery from them.
"Wasn´t thought to be available on early earth¨, ergo, you are to believe that it is thought to be so now .
Is it ? what was the chemical ? I have read several reports on Miller Urey, none name this chemical.
How could these molecules have formed on earth, if the atmosphere for the experiment wasn´t the atmosphere of early earth ? Miller himself said his mix of gasses was incorrect.
So, what is the correlation to abiogenesis in nature ? Certainly chemical reactions are natural, yet these in this experiment had to have a very specific atmosphere, controlled and maintained, specially purified material, in an overall setting that is now considered wrong. Did the experiment use the UV light that would have been present on the early earth ? Since purified water was used, what would have been present in the water on early earth ? How could those potential and likely materials effect the process ? Miller Urey used some oxygen. Apparently an amount considered today to be too low for the early earth. Oxygen is the master oxidizer, how would more of it effect the documented process ?
Miller Urey was an interesting experiment, apparently meeting the goals of its designers.
However, it is long outdated as representing the atmosphere of early earth, unless that has changed, again.
It represents exactly what it is, nothing more. It doesn´t represent, apparently, what would have been the atmosphere and conditions on early earth accurately.
What it created is interesting, yet even if there was perfect consensus on the experiments environment being correct, exactly how does what was produced fit into abiogenisis ? They are non living materials required for life. They exist in nature, like in meteorites.
I see little correlation to abiogenesis, which is a process, not a thing, like an amino acid.
If I put a pile of 15,000 bricks on a lot, could I call it the creation of a house ? Could I say the brick is representative of the house building process ?
There are various definitions of information for life, all are good. I like ¨ that which gives a living organism the ability to select the correct option when two or more selections can be made ¨. This refers to DNA, through RNA, to the correct protein required by some function or part of a cell.
Knock off the name calling, now. Next time your butt gets reported.
If you don´t have the class to avoid this childish stuff, get it.
Let the weaseling begin!
