A poll for creationists

[shunyadragon]

It is great that scientists are learning and studying... As I read it, I am simply looking for assumptions and understanding that science still is evolving, they may come up with more information that can support the evidence as well as negate the evidence.



OK... let's start with this one:


could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce
showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—

Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously.

Now we are talking statistical probabilities that MOST building blocks happen simultaneously as well as uniting and evolving into nucleic acids and amino acids besides happening at the same time and in VERY close proximity.

Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them.

Obviously, there is no empirical and verifiable evidence of what the early Earth was.

That said, Sutherland cautions that the reactions that would have made each of the sets of building blocks are different enough from one another—requiring different metal catalysts, for example—that they likely would not have all occurred in the same location. Rather, he says, slight variations in chemistry and energy could have favored the creation of one set of building blocks over another, such as amino acids or lipids, in different places. “Rainwater would then wash these compounds into a common pool,” says Dave Deamer, an origin-of-life researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who wasn’t affiliated with the research.

Could life have kindled in that common pool? That detail is almost certainly forever lost to history. But the idea and the “plausible chemistry” behind it is worth careful thought, Deamer says. Szostak agrees. “This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”

So we have could have, maybe, was thought, could undergo with suppositions of them coming together in a pool because they know that the varieties would happen in different places so we statistically have to factor in same time, rain water, same pool, close enough proximity, correct environment with a supposed what-the-earth-was at that time.

NOT SAYING that there isn't science here and that they aren't learning something but, at this time, it sounds more like "I"ntelligent people are "D"esigning what probably is statistically improbable.

Purely my opinion and definitely not a Biologist with a PHD at the end.

Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, who was an evolutionist with three earned doctorates, eventually decided against evolution. Why? Apparently his view as an evolutionist came to a halt when he realized:

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." (his words)

And as secular researcher Richard Milton said "Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters"

Did he just say "biologist"?

I cited research and you respond with crack pot Milton. No Milton has a very bad reputation among the biological sciences. He has supported the work of Paul Kammerer a long dead Lamarckian scientist. I do not believe what you cited involved peer reviewed research, but simply the opinion of crack pot Milton.

I have cited current peer reviewed research, and their will be more.

 

[Kenny]

I posted two references on the the progress of research on abiogenesis and no response

There will be more.

Please update your viewing ability... one had already been answered.

 

[Kenny]

I cited research and you respond with crack pot Milton. No Milton has a very bad reputation among the biological sciences. He has supported the work of Paul Kammerer a long dead Lamarckian scientist. I do not believe what you cited involved peer reviewed research, but simply the opinion of crack pot Milton.

I have cited current peer reviewed research, and their will be more.

GOT IT!!! Three doctorals = crackpot.

Great scientific response with no reponse to my comments.

Are we back to "talking good but no substance?"

 

[metis]

Play nice!

 

[shunyadragon]

GOT IT!!! Three doctorals = crackpot.

Great scientific response with no reponse to my comments.

Are we back to "talking good but no substance?"

Number of PhDs just means Piled higher and Deeper when crackpot Milton supports the Limarkian scientist research. You are neglecting this problem. Degrees do not count unless it is published as research in peer reviewed journals and so far.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please update your viewing ability... one had already been answered.

Answered by what? No not answered by research by a respected scientist in a peer reviewed journal. You have not answered both.

By the way the qualifiers in the research are justified, and not a weakness, because the research is on going and all the answers are of course not in, but it is indeed progress in abiogenesis research into the mechanism of inorganic chemical evolution for RNA and DNA.

 

[Kenny]

Answered by what? No not answered by research by a respected scientist in a peer reviewed journal. You have not answered both.

By the way the qualifiers in the research are justified, and not a weakness, because the research is on going and all the answers are of course not in, but it is indeed progress in abiogenesis research into the mechanism of inorganic chemical evolution for RNA and DNA.

I get it... I have to have a PHD in biology, must be qualified by who you think is qualified and, no doubt, must be a peer reviewed document UNLESS it is done by an organization who YOU deem to be crackpots...

Got it...

very scientific.

Incidentally, that site you gave just said "definite maybe"... which means "could be true but maybe not." And I figured that out without a biology degree

 

[Jose Fly]

So @KenS .....do you have any actual statistics, can you post the citation for the Milton quote, and do you acknowledge that atoms and molecules self-organize?

 

[Jose Fly]

Incidentally, that site you gave just said "definite maybe"... which means "could be true but maybe not."

I thought you understood how that's the language of a project being in the hypothesis stage? Now you seem to be citing the language in a different context.

 

[Kenny]

So @KenS .....do you have any actual statistics, can you post the citation for the Milton quote, and do you acknowledge that atoms and molecules self-organize?

Absolutely... I have an hypothesis that they were intelligently designed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Absolutely... I have an hypothesis that they were intelligently designed.

?????????? How is that 1) statistics, 2) a citation, and 3) an acknowledgement that atoms and molecules self-organize?

 

[Darkstorn]

?????????? How is that 1) statistics, 2) a citation, and 3) an acknowledgement that atoms and molecules self-organize?

"You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into." - Some Guy

 

[shunyadragon]

I get it... I have to have a PHD in biology, must be qualified by who you think is qualified and, no doubt, must be a peer reviewed document UNLESS it is done by an organization who YOU deem to be crackpots...

Got it...

very scientific.

Incidentally, that site you gave just said "definite maybe"... which means "could be true but maybe not." And I figured that out without a biology degree

As usual you misquote and misrepresent me, and prefer a Lamarkian scientist over peer reviewed academic publications.

 

[metis]

According to an article I read in "Scientific American" several years ago, they said that a formal creationist paper has not been submitted for scientific peer-review anywhere since the mid-1950's.

 

[Kenny]

According to an article I read in "Scientific American" several years ago, they said that a formal creationist paper has not been submitted for scientific peer-review anywhere since the mid-1950's.

Understandibly so,I would think. And if my information is correct, journals not peer-reviewed were published all the way to 1973 (at lease according to the error free trustworthy google )

 

[Kenny]

Is this true?

Thomas Stossel, a Professor at Harvard Medical School, stated:‘'But unbeknownst to the media, the journals at the top got there because of herd behavior by researchers, not because they are better than lower-tier journals at vetting research quality. Here’s why: Researchers submit their best work to the top journals, which can therefore afford to maintain their prestige by rejecting, not publishing, many high quality papers. That’s brand creation—not science. Most of their editorial effort goes into deciding which submitted papers are sufficiently newsworthy. Anonymous peer review by jealous competitors has its merits, but it has a tendency to select for fashionable if relatively unoriginal and inoffensive papers … although these reports often do not substantively advance scientific knowledge, and many subsequently are invalidated.’'

just asking @metis

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this true?

Thomas Stossel, a Professor at Harvard Medical School, stated:‘'But unbeknownst to the media, the journals at the top got there because of herd behavior by researchers, not because they are better than lower-tier journals at vetting research quality. Here’s why: Researchers submit their best work to the top journals, which can therefore afford to maintain their prestige by rejecting, not publishing, many high quality papers. That’s brand creation—not science. Most of their editorial effort goes into deciding which submitted papers are sufficiently newsworthy. Anonymous peer review by jealous competitors has its merits, but it has a tendency to select for fashionable if relatively unoriginal and inoffensive papers … although these reports often do not substantively advance scientific knowledge, and many subsequently are invalidated.’'

just asking @metis

This is quite the non sequitur. It looks like you are quoting someone on an unrelated subject to excuse the fact that creationism is religious nonsense that is not supported by reality at all.

 

[metis]

Understandibly so,I would think. And if my information is correct, journals not peer-reviewed were published all the way to 1973 (at lease according to the error free trustworthy google )

I'm not sure what you're saying here, so could you clarify and also link to what you found?

 

[metis]

just asking @metis

There are undoubtedly more papers submitted than can be published, which is often also the same problem I'm sure even your local newspaper has. Certainly some may more rise to the top.

However, even if one cannot get their paper published, they can still submit their findings through directly contacting others via e-mail or phone as scientists do talk with each other a lot. A classic example is when Louis Leaky found his first human fossil that dated back over 1 million years b.p. He called some other scientists out, at first they weren't sure if his find was more human or ape, but that fairly quickly changed as other fossils were found to help put the first set into perspective. It was a human that probably looked a lot like your ancestors-- heavy facial features with a relatively small brain.

The trouble with theistic causation is what evidence can actually be put forth? Just because a great number of people believe in God or Gods that is not evidence. In order for me to put forth X + Y = Z, I have to provide evidence that both X and Y actually exists. In this case, how can I do that, and how can I submit anything along this line to peer review?

We know with certainty that life has evolved but, sorry to say, we cannot objectively establish whether there is a God, Gods, or none of the above. As you well know, that's where "faith" comes in, and faith doesn't have to rely on objectively-derived evidence. I truly wish there was such evidence as this is something I've struggled with all my adult life.

Have a great weekend, my friend.