🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:30:43 UTC No. 16275040
If life can form spontaneously why can't a scientist make this happen in a lab?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:33:31 UTC No. 16275045
>>16275040
Spontaneously? You're not familiar with heavy elements and billions of years of molecular combinations that didn't produce life, are you?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:42:14 UTC No. 16275060
>>16275045
DO IT IN A LAB
FUCKING RETARD
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:36:55 UTC No. 16275160
>>16275040
abiogenesis has been disproved
Stop guessing start learning at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:21:06 UTC No. 16275238
>>16275060
I see your mad because life cannot be created in a lab therefore humans don’t really understand biological organisms if they did life could be created in a lab.
Cope and seethe faggot
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 23:54:17 UTC No. 16275293
>>16275060
They made amino acids in the 1950s remember?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:10:28 UTC No. 16275319
>>16275040
I thought you pic was a meme, but it's literally the first image on Wikipedia.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:49:43 UTC No. 16275378
>>16275045
why does it take billions of years to make life?
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:37:18 UTC No. 16275427
>>16275040
> Habitable world
LMAO
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:51:22 UTC No. 16275886
>>16275293
https://answersingenesis.org/origin
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:37:28 UTC No. 16277075
>>16275040
because we still don't have an idea of how it went
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:51:54 UTC No. 16277082
>>16275040
>why can't a scientist make this happen in a lab so far?
FTFY
Because, though no impossible
, it is unlikely and so far it hasn't happened.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:01:37 UTC No. 16277088
Because you need the Prime Mover - God.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:05:18 UTC No. 16277093
>>16277088
>Prime Mover - God
Though I too enjoy that subject much, by definition, it is not science. Theology this way, please:
>>>/his/
>>>/x/
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:07:06 UTC No. 16277096
>>16275040
Nick Lane is working on it. Believe it or not, there isn't a lot of money being spent on this intellectual curiosity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLa
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:24:53 UTC No. 16278549
Reactions support limited chemical range which creates lateral RNA adoption
Auto-chemical associations
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:28:44 UTC No. 16278650
>>16275040
Several experiments have shown that the building blocks can form spontaneously, but nobody has a million years to sit around waiting for them to spontaneously combine into a replicator
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:30:37 UTC No. 16278656
>>16275040
Skill issue
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:42:34 UTC No. 16278666
>>16275238
So many are falling for the evolution of molecules meme, further cementing the status quo evolution of the gaps theory. One thing that is nice about it is that it will refute itself, because they can actually perform meaningful experiments on the simple substances. It feels like I am watching the scaffolding being put together to build the domino to knock down all others. When natural selection in the simple substance proves to be an invalid hypothesis, natural selection and evolution will be void with it.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:58:14 UTC No. 16278679
>>16275319
lol
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:59:15 UTC No. 16278681
>>16278650
irrelevant, the process can be sped up since atheist already know the end result.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:04:23 UTC No. 16278687
>>16278650
>the building blocks can form
thats not really true though. please see picrel
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:42:09 UTC No. 16278735
>>16275886
>answersingenesis
You're an idiot
Why can't you read the actual scientific literature? Why do you demand to be fed the info second hand through a creationist website?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:44:09 UTC No. 16278739
>>16278666
Except natural selection and evolution are directly observed so it can't be refuted at this point. Molecular evolution is real.>>16278666
Your God isn't real and he didn't create humans 6000 years ago. Stop coping
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:45:10 UTC No. 16278742
>>16278687
>creation.com
Why are creationists all over /sci/ and other boards lately?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:10:21 UTC No. 16278780
>>16278666
>666
Confirmed demiurge trick
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:54:52 UTC No. 16278823
>>16278735
>NOOOO I WONT READ WHAT A Phd biologist has to say if i disagree with his beliefs
notice how you say nothing about the content but focus on the source. i noticed.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:57:23 UTC No. 16278827
>>16278739
>Your God isn't real and he didn't create humans 6000 years ago
how would you know
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:59:54 UTC No. 16278830
Obvious bait thread and people still respond
SAD!
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:59:58 UTC No. 16278831
>>16278823
The content is worthless as it comes from a creationist apologetics website.
>>16278827
Because we've proven that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps 5 million years ago
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:07:35 UTC No. 16278842
>>16278831
sorry bro but Im from hyperborea. you do you and have chimpsex or something
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:10:06 UTC No. 16278846
>>16278831
>The content is worthless as it comes from a creationist apologetics website.
lol what incredible intellectual cowardice. He's more qualified to talk about the subject than you are im quite sure of that
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:10:24 UTC No. 16278848
>>16278842
Nope. You're a monkey and evolved from a common ancestor with chimps. Hyperborea isn't real and Robert Sepehr is a moron.
You getting angry at this doesn't mean anything. We've proved it and it doesn't matter that you don't like it.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:11:54 UTC No. 16278849
>>16278846
He's not. He'd publish in an actual journal if we were.
Creation.com and answersingenesis are not valid sources.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:13:12 UTC No. 16278852
>>16278849
>Creation.com and answersingenesis are not valid sources.
I accept them as such. your move
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:14:21 UTC No. 16278853
>>16275040
If the sun was formed spontaneously, why can't scientists create a copy of the sun in a lab?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:14:33 UTC No. 16278854
>>16278852
>I accept them as such
Then your opinion is irrelevant. You also can't do basic math
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:16:24 UTC No. 16278857
>>16278854
you make an appeal to authority when the same twats you love so much are proponents of the climate pseudo science and fans of the covid cult. your opinion has no power here
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:22:10 UTC No. 16278864
>>16278857
Climate change is real and measurable, and the covid virus is real and measurable.
You pretending white people crawled out of a warm cave of hyperborea is an extremely pathetic and delusional.
Yes, you're a monkey. Yes, you evolved from a common ancestor with chimps. Yes, you're almost genetically identical with black people. You getting angry at this doesn't mean anything.
You also can't do basic math. It's very very obvious with "people" like you.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:33:59 UTC No. 16278879
>>16278849
>. He'd publish in an actual journal if we were.
he does that too. there are thousands of creation believing publishing scientists and it drives atheists nuts.
>NOOOOO i refuse to read what they say!!!!!1
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:52:38 UTC No. 16278900
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:09:58 UTC No. 16278924
>>16278900
Of those five instruments is one of them the faggot or even the trutruka
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:56:06 UTC No. 16278972
>>16278900
Look at those soulless NPC eyes.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:46:00 UTC No. 16279030
>>16278972
you have great counter arguments, very convincing and solid. well done.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:54:19 UTC No. 16279040
>>16278972
>I WONT READ ANYTHING FROM THAT WEBSITE I HEARD ABOUT
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO
>calls other people NPC
lol, good one
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:05:55 UTC No. 16279153
>>16278742
They probably had nothing better to do, they've already fucked their whole family with inbreeding and pseudo medicine why not try to fuck with some randos in the internet. Just apebrain behavior, instead of building something they have to bother other people with their toddler level blabbering
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:46:01 UTC No. 16279230
>>16279153
the real NPCs are those who never bother to check out what others really say and just repeat stupid things like you just did.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:05:30 UTC No. 16279259
>evolution has to be real because to believe otherwise would call my atheism into question
>and if my atheism isn't an unquestionable utter certainty then I might have to reassess the addictive hedonistic bad habits i use muh atheism to justify
>what if i have to give up on porno, masturbation, drugs and constantly telling lies to everyone i know?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:15:19 UTC No. 16279278
>>16279259
Evolution has been directly observed multiple times
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:28:00 UTC No. 16279291
>>16279278
adaptation has been observed multiple times. One kind of animal changing into another kind of animal has not been observed, and life coming from non life hasn't either.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:30:12 UTC No. 16279293
>>16275040
give me a second nigga, I'm working on it
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:55:36 UTC No. 16279320
>>16279291
>adaptation has been observed multiple times.
That's evolution
You saying "adaptation isn't evolution" is false because adaptation is, in fact, evolution. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, you need to stop with the low IQ creationist talking points
>One kind of animal changing into another kind of animal has not been observed
That's speciation and has been observed many times. "Kinds" in the creationist worldview isn't even well defined or real.
For example, archeopteryx is "half bird half lizard", if you want an example of something "between kinds".
>life coming from non life hasn't either.
There are multiple self replicating polypeptides that are known. One is only 32 amino acids long. This will be solved in a few years
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:09:54 UTC No. 16279356
>>16279320
>There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution
There is if the changes are bounded, which is what has been observed. Creatures have a range of adaptability within which they remain viable (can live, function, reproduce etc). Outside of that they are not viable and die.
> archeopteryx
its just a bird. later and more thorough examinations concluded this but the idea that its a transitional form stuck in the public mind.
>has been observed many times
you are encouraged to provide some examples of this.
>This will be solved in a few years
we'll see. in the meantime, since you seem to have an interest in the debate, what do you think of what this guy has to say?
>>16278900
>>16278687
inb4 IM NOT READING THAT
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:35:07 UTC No. 16279396
>>16279320
>"Kinds" in the creationist worldview isn't even well defined or real.
tell me about 'species' then. consider all cat species - within the family of 'cats' they can all interbreed, perhaps not every species with every other, but all within the family of cat can at some point interbreed. But a cat will never breed with a dog.
there are vagaries on both sides of this,
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:46:24 UTC No. 16279411
>>16279356
>but the idea that its a transitional form stuck in the public mind.
It’s a transitional form because it has a bony tail, teeth and fingers. It’s not the only bird like that in the fossil record either, and all of them are transitional
>perhaps not every species with every other, but all within the family of cat can at some point interbreed
Do you seriously expect a lion to be capable of interbreeding with a house cat? Species are defined by genetic distance and lack of gene flow today. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s a whole lot fucking better than “kinds” where apparently humans and chimps are different kinds while an entirely family of cats, class of birds or even suborder of snakes are apparently the single kinds
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:55:46 UTC No. 16279431
>>16279356
>There is if the changes are bounded,
Which they aren't, not in the way you're saying
There is nothing stopping chihuahuas from eventually turning into a mouse like thing, which would be a "different kind", as an example
>its just a bird.
No, it isn't. It's a direct proof of something between birds and reptiles.
>later and more thorough examinations concluded this
No, they didn't. Its creationists saying "it's just a bird!" To cope with the direct transitional form.
We also have over 6000 fossils of over 22 different species showing the transition to modern humans, they are transitional forms, but you guys just go "thats just an ape!" Or "that's just a human" despite the objective transition happening across the species and fossils.
>you are encouraged to provide some examples of this.
Ring species
Canine transmissible venereal tumor
>what do you think of what this guy has to say?
There's a known polypeptide which is 32 amino acids long. This forms an upper bound on the minimal amount of amino acids in a specific sequence required to start to self replicate (it could be fewer but need not be larger)
The chance that this appears given random sequential trials is about 10^40
However, trials in the world are not sequential, they happen all over the place at the same time over time. Trillions of trials simultaneously across the ocean during early earth, which was and is extremely rich in amino acids (as is the universe in general)
There was maybe 10^24 liters of ocean during the early earth. If we assume a VERY DILUTE distribution of amino acids at 1 million per liter (when in reality it would be trillions per liter but I'm diluting it), then we cycle through 32 strings of amino acids, you would have about 10^31 of these 32-amino-acid self replicating molecules across the ocean in 1 year. And that's assuming extreme dilution and only 1 self replicating polypeptide let along all the other self replicating peptides or polynucleotides.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:57:15 UTC No. 16279434
RNA came before amino acid. it's RNA that delivers amino acids to ribosomes (also made of RNA) that manufacturer proteins which are chains of amino acids
🗑️ Barkon, Vard and Worl at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:58:23 UTC No. 16279437
Fags. I'm coming now I know how to DO properly. If ya get me, retards.
1. Set up
2. Go
3. Fart in my mouf now
4. Perfect this list with perfect numbers too
5. Kys fags
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:03:58 UTC No. 16279443
>>16279434
Yes, in a cell. mRNA and tRNA go to the ribosome and make the protein, but self replicating polypeptides exist.
The RNA might have hijacked various replicating amino acids which both formed independently. The RNA and ribosome do not need to be formed prior to the peptides. They all could form on their own and eventually join in a membrane structure. All these things are forming and proliferating and eventually the proto cell forms by these things interacting with each other.
However abiogenesis isn't known yet there's more work to be done.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:12:17 UTC No. 16279451
>>16278742
>lately
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:26:51 UTC No. 16279470
>>16279259
>>Projection
>>Projection+Christian-fantasy-logi
>>Pure fantasy of a fake person I made up in my head
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:40:50 UTC No. 16279484
>>16279411
>all of them are transitional
thats something you really cant prove.
>Do you seriously expect a lion to be capable of interbreeding with a house cat?
no, and thats not what i said. But it could with some other cat, which could breed with some other cat which could breed with a house cat. There is no such chain linking cats to dogs.
> humans and chimps are different kinds
got any humans breeding with chimps etc?
>>16279431
>There is nothing stopping chihuahuas from eventually turning into a mouse like thing,
its just never been observed in any way. What has been observed indicates that animals are limited in how much they can change.
> It's a direct proof of something between birds and reptiles.
https://www.icr.org/article/archaeo
i wonder if you'll be able to read that.
> rich in amino acids
and how does what was said in the article i showed you interact with that?
i will look up the other stuff you mentioned
🗑️ Barkon, Vard and Worl at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:44:24 UTC No. 16279487
>>16279470
Pain. Cross. Here.
Hand. Understood
No interruptions will occur
Master at work
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:47:43 UTC No. 16279491
>>16279431
>self replicating peptides
https://creation.com/self-replicati
https://creation.com/nucleobases-rn
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:53:09 UTC No. 16279571
>>16278864
>Climate change is real and measurable, and the covid virus is real and measurable.
nice straw man, anon. you are quit the sophist.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:22:20 UTC No. 16280267
>>16279484
>thats something you really cant prove.
Wrong. You just deny it because it completely refutes your position
>What has been observed indicates that animals are limited in how much they can change.
Wrong
>links to Brian Thomas on a creationist website
I already said, creationists simply denying reality because it refutes their position isn't an argument. Archeopteryx is NOT "just a bird" it has objective anatomical features which are between bird and lizard because it's a "transitional form". Creationists simply pretend this isn't true because it directly shows you a transitional form which you guys staked your position on not existing.
The same is true for the over 6000 fossils of the 22 species which are transitional between humans and out ancestors with the other great apes.
>>16279491
>creation.com again
I don't know why you're not getting this so I will tell you clearly:
Anything you get from a creationist apologetic website or source is NOT VALID and it does not matter whatsoever for this conversation. It can be thrown our immediately.
Stop getting your info from second hand creationist shit and actually read the literature.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:57:31 UTC No. 16280304
>>16280267
>things are not valid if i say so
>i dont even have to read or respond to them if i say so
ok
>archaeoteryx
Publishing in the Royal Society's Biology Letters, the researchers wrote that Archaeopteryx's assignment to a dinosaur group earlier this year "was acknowledged to be weakly supported."
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 15:03:38 UTC No. 16280306
>>16280304
>Publishing in the Royal Society's Biology Letters, the researchers wrote that Archaeopteryx's assignment to a dinosaur group earlier this year "was acknowledged to be weakly supported."
That's a taxonomical argument. Regardless of how you classify it, it had features of birds and of dinosaurs/reptiles.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 15:05:23 UTC No. 16280309
>>16280304
>doesn't understand the paper
That paper does not argue that archaeopteryx isn't transitional
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:51:37 UTC No. 16281389
>>16280306
It doesn't matter because it doesn't say what its ancestors or progeny are. Endless hypothetical arguments are not facts.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:13:04 UTC No. 16281403
>>16281389
NTA, but if you'd actually look at the evidence with an open mind you'd realize you are wrong.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:03:23 UTC No. 16281436
>>16275045
Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago. Earliest known life forms on Earth are 4.1 billion years old. Life only had 0.44 billion years to evolve. ATANE - abiogenesis tards are never educated.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:49:12 UTC No. 16282233
>>16278853
Indeed.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:03:54 UTC No. 16282242
>>16275040
I can do it. Just give me a very large lab and 6 billion years.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:05:55 UTC No. 16282244
>>16278900
Why do they always look so retarded?
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:29:45 UTC No. 16282264
>>16281436
NTA, but "only" 440 million years seems plenty time, given that the entire primordial ocean system can be thought of as trillions upon trillions of interacting instances of organic molecules combining in parallel.
Look up Nick Lane's research into alkaline hydrothermal vents. His labs have succeeded in recreating the basic metabolic pathways of the Krebs Cycle by replicating the chemistry of alkaline vents.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:46:56 UTC No. 16282277
>>16278742
Trump awakened Christians to pretend to be conservative and take their mission to the American people again, because they don’t want to be left out of a movement.
So we’re back to 2002 again with midwit conspiracy theories and pseudoscience alienating everyone and creating a new generation of daily show audience members.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:56:21 UTC No. 16282287
>>16275040
because you need a huge ass lab and the experiment would need to be ran for hundreds of millions of years. and even if you did that, any result from such experiment wouldn't prove anything, because it's a perchance thing.
so in reality, to run such an experiement that you can get meaningful info out of, you'd need to start a few thousand Earths at a minimum, in parallel, each with similar conditions as ours had.
observe all these Earths for hundreds of millions of years, note down the results, and start debating them. anything else is just bullshit.
again because low iq retards like you need it dumbed down: you cannot recreate the experiment in the lab, because there's too many water molecules that need to interact with other chemicals for hundreds of millions of years to get close to the conditions that allowed for life to form. anything else short of that is a bad experiment. if you use less water molecules then you need to extend the time it runs for. but having a smaller Earth or a larger Earth means you change the conditions so you need to make "identical" Earths for running such experiment. if 1000 Earths don't spawn life in a few hundreds of millions of years you might have an argument for "we're so fucking special", you retard. start life in a lab is not a legitimate argument for fucks sake, it's primitive retarded thinking. it doesn't make scientific and mathematical sense. it's flawed logic.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:08:26 UTC No. 16282589
>>16282287
Why are you talking about the time it takes for life to form, when they haven't made life in a lab?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:13:48 UTC No. 16283185
>>16275040
Making something happen in a lab is deliberate, not spontaneous.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:30:04 UTC No. 16283191
It will never be recreated in a lab because it's impossible.
The entire thing requires no lab.
Back then on earth there weren't any humans (observers) so the entire environment was quantum in nature, only in that environment can it happen. In lab there are too many observers.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:41:04 UTC No. 16283199
>>16275040
> we’ve made polymers and vesicles spontaneously ez
> we’ve observed rna enzymes catalyzing making polymers ez
> we’ve observed rna being hereditary
> we’ve observed lipids forming micelles, cell-like ball shaped membrane structures
> we’ve filled le micelles with polymers and whatnot ez
> now we need to put rna in micelle and study it systematically to see if it can provide heredity and be an enzyme
> if we observe this, and if we observe the micelle growing bigger as it absorbs lipids and more rna is made from chemicals already in water, we have a growing micelle
> if the growing micelle tears apart and forms two smaller rna-filled micelles, with the rna being distributed more or less equally between the two, bingo
> that’s the most primitive kind of reproduction, that’s the simplest “protocell”
> the rest is ez: rna make dna making enzyme, dna making enzyme make dna from rna, dna replace rna, dna use rna as enzyme until protein becomes enzyme, and now we have dna+enzyme protocell
> then there’s no doubt about the evolution of LUCA from this protocell
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:59:22 UTC No. 16283207
>>16275238
Dude, you keep bringing up creating life, have you ever like been with a woman? You know you can, create life with a woman, right? Like... fucking her in a lab?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 06:06:31 UTC No. 16283215
>>16275238
*you're
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 07:39:55 UTC No. 16283265
>>16279356
>its just a bird.
Can you name any birds with teeth and no beak?
Can you name any birds with a long, bony tail?
Can you name any birds with unfused forelimbs and 3 clawed fingers?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:31:43 UTC No. 16283298
>>16279396
The most common layman explanation I think one can give is: "sexually selects other members of the same species always or most commonly, is interfertile with members of the same species that it selects, and produces offspring which abide the two previous rules."
This means that when something stops seeing another species as a viable mate, it's now a new species, which is common in biology. See Darwin's finches. Maybe interfertile, but they never sexually select eachother.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:51:22 UTC No. 16283307
>>16278848
you sound hot as fuck saying smart shit, so is there proof god isn't real? what about like math? is math real? whats our purpose in life?tell me more anon pls
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:56:04 UTC No. 16283338
>>16282589
>when they haven't made life in a lab?
because it's not possible in human life terms. it's not a legitimate ask. you can't realistically run a lab experiment to make life, if the requirments for experiment imply the number of water molecules that Earth had at that time, interacting for few hundreds of millions of years in certain conditions. you cannot replicate that as a human, not sure what you're not following. lay off the retard juice.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:53:59 UTC No. 16283386
>>16283338
What is the relevance of time here? Just because something (allegedly) took x amount of time to happen does not mean that it required that time.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:08:53 UTC No. 16283418
>>16280267
>is NOT VALID and it does not matter whatsoever for this conversation.
even when those authors are publishing scientists fully qualified to comment in the area? Every time you say this it just sounds like 'i wont read anything by someone i disagree with', because thats exactly what you're saying.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:11:01 UTC No. 16283420
>>16282244
more incredible intellectual dishonesty
>>16282287
what if the chemistry simply doesn't work that way, like this guy says?
>>16278687
>>16278900
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:31:47 UTC No. 16283435
>>16283420
He is saying the experiments are fake and gay for using water at very high temperatures and pressure.
But very high temperatures and pressure occur naturally around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 12:50:47 UTC No. 16283449
>>16281403
No, the argument is literally an endless syllogism, chain of implications, hypotheticals. This on itself would be no problems because you can just walk the chain and find where their materialism steered them into stupidity, but it also has gaping holes in it larger and more rotten than tranny crotch. Evolution of the gaps.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:21:51 UTC No. 16283466
>>16283265
could be just another evolutionary dead end. been plenty of those. theres no way to prove its 'transitioning' from dinos to birdies.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:22:52 UTC No. 16283468
>>16283386
>What is the relevance of time here?
>what is statistics
you must be on the wrong board anon
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:47:10 UTC No. 16283489
>>16282287
so the hypothesis is non-falsifiable?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:13:43 UTC No. 16283511
>>16283489
you can technically run the experiment, you just can't afford it. you need a fuckload of energy and technological might to assemble these extra Earths, and develop tech to reassemble your brain few hundred million years later so you can judge the results. it's doable, just not the way you're thinking about it.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:17:40 UTC No. 16283513
>>16283511
If you are fat, you're fat. That's it. You're a fatty.
This is how stupid this thread was. Kys.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:19:39 UTC No. 16283515
>>16283513
>brain bsods tf out
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:08:36 UTC No. 16283568
>>16283511
we could create a super computer to run the experiment for us. What do you think to calling it "Deep Thought"? It might have the answer to life, the universe and everything ready for us in just a few millions years.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:15:30 UTC No. 16283649
>>16283468
Statistics of...?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:24:31 UTC No. 16283668
>>16283649
you are not the sharpest tool in the shed are you
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:34:24 UTC No. 16283683
>>16283668
Answer the question.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:37:42 UTC No. 16283689
>>16283683
anon you are completely clueless, scientifically speaking. so go on, spew out your religious bullshit and let's get this over with. we both know where this is going. if you don't understand how chance fits into recreating life "in the lab" then you're hopeless.
you arguments are old and you're fully unprepared so you will inevitably just brush away any scientific argument and will vomit stupid shit.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:38:39 UTC No. 16283690
>>16283689
You have not answered my question.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:44:55 UTC No. 16283697
>>16283690
it's not legitimate
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:46:43 UTC No. 16283699
>>16283697
>preemptively folding
Sad.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:04:01 UTC No. 16283725
>>16283466
So you're willing to admit it's NOT a bird, then. Thus it's evidence of transition even if it itself isn't the main transition. That is what we call transitionary.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:55:05 UTC No. 16283793
>>16283468
>PAJT
what did God mean by that?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 19:49:49 UTC No. 16283973
>>16283725
a bird with some changes. still a bird, just a bit screwed up. no evidence of a 'transition'.
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 20:05:53 UTC No. 16283996
>>16283973
What makes it a bird?
Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:58:39 UTC No. 16284220
>>16275040
put a somali in a lab with women unsupervised and we'll see about spontanious baby making
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:43:57 UTC No. 16285155
>>16284220
would be a very uncontrolled experiment but definitely supportive of unintelligent design.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:11:51 UTC No. 16285181
>>16283973
>"there are no examples of transitional forms"
>"actually there are thousands of them. Archaeopteryx is transitional between lizards and birds, for example"
>"n-no that doesn't count its just a bird!"
Creationists are sad and pathetic
Archaeopteryx is, in fact, a transitional form between lizards and birds. It is not a "bird with some changes" it maintains half the features of lizards and half the features of birds because it's moving through the form of lizards to the form of birds.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:19:40 UTC No. 16285190
>>16279259
Sorry God isn't real and the Jew aren't God's chosen people.
Sucks to suck nerd
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:50:42 UTC No. 16285289
>>16282264
> have succeeded in recreating the basic metabolic pathways of the Krebs Cycle
to what extent is this really true? As far as I'm aware the Krebs Cycle might as well be called the pyruvate dehydrogenase cycle, because that's the key enzyme. It requires thiamine, which didn't evolve until much much later. I can believe that the rest of the cycle might be possible to replicate, but without the key step there is no cycle, right?
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:40:48 UTC No. 16285400
>>16285181
>because it's moving through the form of lizards to the form of birds.
thats an assumption based on nothing.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 22:44:36 UTC No. 16285659
>>16285400
What do you think makes archaeopteryx a bird? It has things no other existing bird has, and some creationists classify it as just a dinosaur.
The transition is so evidential, that some creationists even say "it's its own kind" because it obviously fits both as a bird and dinosaur.
How about something like an oviraptor?
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:10:46 UTC No. 16285691
>>16285659
There’s plenty of late Cretaceous dinosaurs that look like birds. Oviraptor, Neimongosaurus, Paraxenisaurus, Austroraptor, to name a few. Dinosaurs had developed feathers and beaks in multiple genera (though not necessarily at the same time), and the dinosaur families that had these characteristics didn’t necessarily become what we call birds in the present day.
Basically, you will find your T-Rex and Dreadnoughtus and others that looked “dinosaur”, but there were plenty that looked like gigantic cassowaries with massive tails, sometimes with teeth or claws on their wings.
The fact that Archaeopteryx (which is from much earlier, the late Jurassic) had birdlike features is hardly surprising, but it was a dinosaur through and through like all the late Cretaceous “cassowary” dinosaurs.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:13:29 UTC No. 16285696
>>16285691
How do you define the term transitional species?" What would you look for to determine if it's possible one form transitioned into another.
Do note, we're not talking about the "direct family tree link," we're talking about evidence that the forms changed over time.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 00:07:50 UTC No. 16285785
>>16275040
My unjustified and unscientific suspicion is that artificial abiogenesis is not possible. My hunch is that we simply do not have the necessary kind of control over the universe, and can't gain it any more than we can create a new fundamental force or take a stroll into a fourth spatial dimension.
I should emphasise that this is just a hunch, a best guess. It isn't a firm belief, religious or otherwise.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 00:40:03 UTC No. 16285817
>>16285785
I think it'd be possible but hard to do. Say we do recreate the initial conditions exactly, how long do we wait until scientists think they may have it wrong?
What is the run time? What is the acceptable delay?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:23:33 UTC No. 16286301
I don't know enough about either side of the debate here but dave farina is pure reddit so I think I'm naturally biased against his views
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:36:36 UTC No. 16286589
>>16275040
What about morphic field theory?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:25:13 UTC No. 16286793
>>16285817
what if its just not possible due to various oppositional effects and chemical processes?
>>16278900
>>16278687
then however long you let your system run it will never get anywhere
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 14:35:05 UTC No. 16287252
>>16275060
remember the seethe when urea was synthesized for the first time in 1828?
you should read the story.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:08:11 UTC No. 16287378
>>16275060
>DO IT IN A LAB
>FUCKING RETARD
Wouldn't that be proof of intelligent design?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:23:49 UTC No. 16287402
>>16278831
>>monkey
Nuh uh. Best evidence is some bones and banana-level close DNA matches. Source: Your mother.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:50:20 UTC No. 16287429
>>16278687
>in order to speed up reaction rates, we increased the variables associated with reaction rates and the reaction occured quickly
this does not mean it is impossible for it to happen slowly, just that they had to speed it up to human lifescales. This is a silly piece of writing from someone who doesn't understand the field they're standing at the edge of.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 18:06:18 UTC No. 16287518
>>16287429
thats clearly not a direct quotation so you'll have to be clear what you're referring to please
And do note the guys credentials.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:19:17 UTC No. 16287609
>>16286793
Seems unlikely as we already got proteins, and if you get any self-replicators you're beyond halfway to life
Detection and timing are the main issues for thin experiment at this point.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:22:56 UTC No. 16287613
>>16287518
>thats clearly not a direct quotation
what is "paraphrasing"?
>And do note the guys credentials.
a "chemist" and a member of an organization that spends more time spending money to try and buy out governments than it does trying to prove anything experimentally? What kind of chemist? Very vague wording, like someone trying to cover up lack of qualification on a subject.
I don't see what you're getting at.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:47:48 UTC No. 16287646
>>16278687
The obvious refutation to this is that the first replicator could have been a distributed chemical network of RNAs, as per the RNA world hypothesis.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:49:08 UTC No. 16287649
>>16278827
My god created the world last Tuesday.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:59:56 UTC No. 16287665
>>16283418
NTA but those articles are clearly op-eds, not scientific articles. Even if they were published in a reputable scientific journal, these are clearly communicating to the layperson, not to other scientists in the field. This is just a list of excuses for creationists to pull out while they argue that abiogenesis is impossible because it has not been demonstrated in a lab.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:38:05 UTC No. 16287722
>>16287609
>as we already got proteins
where did we get them?
>>16287613
>what is "paraphrasing"?
im just not sure exactly which bit you're paraphrasing. i understood it wasn't a quote.
>>16287665
but are his talking points wrong?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:47:56 UTC No. 16287739
>>16287722
Oop, I misspoke, meant amino acids, the building blocks to proteins
If we got proteins I don't know about it yet
>are his talking points wrong?
Yes they literally sign a contract which states no evidence will sway their position
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:59:26 UTC No. 16287748
>>16287739
>Oop, I misspoke, meant amino acids, the building blocks to proteins
thats what i was thinking, and the formation of proteins from amino acids is directly addressed in his first point.
>es they literally sign a contract which states no evidence will sway their position
you have evidence for this? where did you find this out?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:06:45 UTC No. 16287753
>>16287748
>Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
from their https://creation.com/what-we-believ
For a similar organization, look to Answers in Genesis and their statement of faith.
>No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
If anyone wants to keep their job in a creationist institute, they have to ignore evidence.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:30:51 UTC No. 16287772
>>16287753
fair enough. i wonder if scientists on the evolutionary side would say the same
>nothing whatsoever in any field can indicate an intelligent creator. i will not believe it.
this is beside the point though really. focus on what he says and attack that.
He does address protein formation in his points 1-4 on p24. What do you think of the 1st point?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:54:51 UTC No. 16287795
>>16287772
>it'll end up at a 50/50 ratio!
Currently, life uses L. If it can only use L, then 50% of amino acids can go towards abiogenesis.
If either L or D can be used, but only with others of their same chirality, then both halves can independently work towards abiogenesis.
Why does it matter if there's non-useful amino acids if there are still useful ones?
50% is a ratio, there still could be millions of L.
>without enzymes, they may join incorrectly!
Sure, they may also join correctly. So?
>Earth might have had all these chemicals that kill some bacteria!
Some bacteria isn't all, if you have the chemistry right you can get a self-replicating thing.
>The stuff we can make is not important!
I don't see how it's not important, I'm not a biochemist, but he's just saying that. Even granting his point, if 99% is a ratio, there could still be millions or hundreds of thousands of amino acids of "greater importace" all near eachother.
Earth is really big, if you don't know, even with a very high ratio you still get trillions of the building blocks.
For the first 4 points, his entire argument is just "it would have been unlikely," and I agree. I think abiogenesis is unlikely, but once it happens you have life and you're golden for evolution.
Also would explain why there aren't any aliens we can see.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 11:50:20 UTC No. 16288292
>>16287795
>this happens under realistic conditions so fast as to stop the production of any functional proteins
And so far as we can observe so far he's right about this.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:03:03 UTC No. 16288629
>>16288292
So can he support his claim that this prevents protein creation, and doesn't just slow it down by 50%?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:08:07 UTC No. 16288635
>>16288629
well im not sure we have any observed any protein formation...
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:09:08 UTC No. 16288637
>>16275040
Just "wait 2 more million years" and "trust the experts".
Just have blind faith it happened and we'll keep calling it "science". :^)
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:13:32 UTC No. 16288641
>>16288635
and yes, i noticed one too many anys
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:13:49 UTC No. 16288642
>>16288635
And I'm asking if it's because it's a rare event, or if it's because it's inhibited. He claims it's inhibited, thus impossible.
Is there any evidence for this? Your reply tells me
>no evidence but if you're right creationism is wrong
>Therefore you are wrong
You took 14 hours to get back to my reply, and you have done nothing ho show anything he says actually prevents protein creation. Do you have any actual responses to the point I raised? Will you grant anything I said, similar to how I granted his 4th point even though he had no evidence?
Feel free to respond to anything I actually said.
>>16288637
This guy is an idiot, the reason creationists care about this at all is because we don't know.
The moment we do know anything, the millisecond we stop saying "I don't know," creationists move away from their god of the gaps arguments.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:20:05 UTC No. 16288650
>>16288642
>k 14 hours
sorry anon, sometimes i go to sleep and then dont instantly come back to the computer.
i dont know if its impossible. i think it might be. either way, theres no evidence of it happening. its good to keep seeing if it can happen, but the honest thing to do, at the moment, would be so say 'we have no observation of it happening' and then not get all upset if some people decide to accept that, go with the assumption that its not possible, and wait to see if theres any future evidence that it is in fact possible.
>god of the gaps arguments.
and on the contrary, the evolutionist has a faith that the gap MUST be filled by his preferred faith - that life can come from non-life and then create incredibly complex mechanisms.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:27:06 UTC No. 16288658
>>16288650
Basically every complex mechanism that exists how has precursors we can study that still exist.
We see that the most basic part of life is just chemistry, and we see that we can make amino acids in a lab setting. The bridge is being built up as time goes on.
>I assume it can't happen, therefore my god is real
Non sequitur, no positive evidence for the existence of god.
>you have more faith than I do!
So you can acknowledge faith is a bad thing, but you assume u have more than you. We actually do have positive facts that indicate evolution.
That's why creationists pushed it back from evolution, which most now accept (even unknowingly), to abiogenesis, simply because we don't have 100% proof yet.
Suppose we create a basic replicator that used D amino acids, I can almost promise a creationist would say
>see! It uses D and not L, therefore L life can only come from god!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:47:06 UTC No. 16288675
>>16288658
>>I assume it can't happen, therefore my god is real
thats absolutely not what anyone believes.
>That's why creationists pushed it back from evolution
they have not done that in the slightest.
>Suppose we create a basic replicator that used D amino acids,
is there any evidence at all that this can happen?
GOing back to something you (i think) brought up earlier just for a moment here,>>16287753 and here >>16287739
>hey literally sign a contract which states no evidence will sway their position
I was wondering if there is any evidence which would lead you to believe that life cannot come from non-life?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:51:26 UTC No. 16288677
>>16288675
>thats absolutely not what anyone believes.
Some people, even if not yourself.
>is there any evidence at all that this can happen?
It's a hypothetical to make a funny jab, not a serious claim. Though I don't see why only L amino acids would work.
L with L, and D with D, sure, but why would D be totally non-functional?
To respond to your last question, I don't know about cannot, but certainly did not.
In the same way you can't disprove there is some form of a god, you can't disprove that a thing like abiogenesis may happen, at least not through any mechanism I know of.
If there were some positive evidence that life came about through some creationist means, I'd accept the evidence. So far the evidence seems to be god of the gaps, or baseless claims that don't show it can't happen—simply that it's unlikely.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:16:09 UTC No. 16288711
>>16288642
>This guy is an idiot
You're just mad that you have blind faith beliefs which are falsely called science. And you evolutionschizos have an "evolution of the gaps", just wait longer and have faith, you're a brain-dead zealot, and your evolution schizo theory is a mind virus on society.
It's your insane schizo evolution theories which lead people to be violent like trying to shoot Trump and all the communist riots and all the violence from you Godless reprobate evolutionistrannies.
You idiots think life came from a rock and you call that science and put it in a textbook and tell kids they share common ancestry with maggots and potatoes. You're a cancer on society.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:17:39 UTC No. 16288714
>>16275040
>If life can form spontaneously
It can't.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:22:24 UTC No. 16288719
>>16288711
You acknowledge faith as bad, yet you still have it.
So much evidence, and you ignore it all.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:31:46 UTC No. 16288732
>>16285400
No, it's a direct observation based on the physical traits of the organism
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:41:57 UTC No. 16288740
>>16278681
mongoloid. we know the end result of decay of 100g of uranium. doesn't mean we can speed up the half life
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:41:30 UTC No. 16288824
>>16288732
theres no direct observation of a dino becoming a bird. theres no observation of any creature becoming another kind of creature; there's only tiny changes seen in any creature we've ever known, while some which we have fossil evidence of have not changed hardly at all , it is said, in tens of millions of years.
>>16288677
>Some people, even if not yourself.
Well, not the ones who write for the creation ministries i've linked to in this thread
> but why would D be totally non-functional?
was reading some posts on Quora by biologists (non creationists btw) and they seem to think that the protein structures created by D-amino acids would have problems folding and over all it all seems even less likely than with L-amino acids, but its easy enough to find the page and read it. i can post it if you like.
> I don't know about cannot, but certainly did not.
im just wondering if theres any point at which someone striving to prove that life can come from non-life would ever have enough evidence of it not being possible that they would say, OK, this isn't happening and i've tried everything i know to try, so i'll not accept as my current conclusion that it can't happen?
Kind of like with making something go faster than the speed of light; according to everything we can possibly know and understand right now, its impossible. Might something make us reconsider somewhere down the line? sure.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:48:08 UTC No. 16288831
>>16288824
But nothing we understand so far says it's impossible to go from amino acids to protiens. We have no theory of "it can't happen"
You SAY it can't but that's no proof.
Your argument from analogy fails, beacuse your analogy is flawed.
Feel free to come up with a testable way to PROVE it can't happen, though. Then do the test.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:54:24 UTC No. 16288839
>>16288831
you don't prove a negative, retard. the onus is on you to prove amino acids to proteins can or does happen without simply handwaving muh billions of years.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:00:37 UTC No. 16288845
>>16288824
Archaeopteryx is a direct transitional form between lizards and birds and you just going "no no no" isn't an argument
We have ~7000 fossils of 22 different species showing the transition from erectus to modern humans and you just going "no no no" isn't an argument
We have ERVs and phylogenetic relations from protein coding as well as non coding DNA showing relation between all extant life, and you just going "no no no" isn't an argument.
We already DO IN FACT HAVE all the things that you're saying we don't have. Because you're a creationist retard and you refuse to accept reality because it contradicts your religious beliefs
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:02:23 UTC No. 16288850
>>16288839
The theory of relativity, which has been experimentally proven, says you can't go faster than light.
Now your turn
>the theory of ____ which has been experimentally proven says you can't fold proteins from amino acids outside of God
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:48:24 UTC No. 16288911
>>16288850
>it's not up to me to prove it's possible, it's up to you to prove it's impossible
imagine unironically being this retarded.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:50:37 UTC No. 16288915
>>16288911
We got amino acids, why can't they fold into proteins?
The chemistry works, if we get lucky with placement you get a protein. It's that simple.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:00:06 UTC No. 16288925
>>16288915
>We got amino acids, why can't they fold into proteins?
Why can't you quantify the rate at which this would be expected to occur?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:14:55 UTC No. 16288934
>>16288845
several reevaluations of the thing have been done. One says without doubt its a dino. another says no question its a bird. and so on. a relationship doesn't mean a transition, it just could mean a shared array of building blocks, something never before directly seen or even hinted at. its not observed science, and you can see what you want to see, or not see. everyone is susceptible to this.
>>16288915
yeah, why not? why hasn't it been observed?
the article pages i posted have a few points on why not. The Dr makes a cumulative case as to why he thinks it cant happen, and so far observation supports his conclusion. i know its not a technical article, but they exist.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:33:08 UTC No. 16288948
>>16288925
Very very slowly. It took half a billion years the first time, around.
>>16288934
>the article
I already went through every point, and you have no counter to my counter. So it's worthless. Counter >>16287795 or I will continue to dismiss your drivel.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:44:34 UTC No. 16288959
>>16288948
>Very very slowly. It took half a billion years the first time, around.
That's simply begging the question.
Does it not give you pause that you resort to such transparent logical fallacies?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:45:54 UTC No. 16288961
>>16288959
We don't currently know how long it took, that's what we're trying to figure out.
There is no reason it couldn't happen, but there is reason to believe it's a rare occurrence.
Yet again, you drivel
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:58:54 UTC No. 16288967
>>16288961
>We don't currently know how long it took, that's what we're trying to figure out.
Why not begin with the obvious starting point of the chemical properties of the amino acids and how resistant they are to spontaneously linking up to become proteins?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:01:40 UTC No. 16288969
>>16275040
Nature does lots of things humans are unable to do.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:03:42 UTC No. 16288973
>>16288967
If you wanted to begin there, why does your source not?
Feel free to post a differnt argument, drivelmage.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:20:02 UTC No. 16288988
>>16288973
I was suggesting that you begin there in your quest to "trying to figure out" how long it took. But your rapid deflection when you sensed the only alternative is acknowledging your arguments are irreducibly circular has been duly noted.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:20:45 UTC No. 16288989
>>16288988
Deflecting again, and then projecting.
>Counter >>16287795 (You) or I will continue to dismiss your drivel.
1 hour ago.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:22:20 UTC No. 16288991
>>16288989
>everyone who argues against me is the same person
seek help.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:22:35 UTC No. 16288992
>>16288991
Drivel dismissed.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 09:53:31 UTC No. 16289390
>>16288845
The idea of "transition" between animals is a Vatican doctrine.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 14:00:30 UTC No. 16289564
>>16288992
lets talk again once lab created amino acids start forming proteins and stuff.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 14:45:09 UTC No. 16290876
>>16289390
Nope. It's a directly observed fact and we have hundreds of thousands of transitional forms in fossils as well as extant species. It is an objective fact and has nothing to do with the vatican or whatever other low IQ shit for brained nonsense you idiots spew
You just going "no no no" isn't an argument. The earth is not 6000 years old, and "molecules to man" evolution is objectively true and has been proven.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 14:56:58 UTC No. 16290885
>>16282277
It seems odd that you would turn this in to a political discussion, help skeptical people understand rather than further alienate them. Like does the neutral theory imply genetic drift to be random and what effect does this have on the overall traits of a population over time?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:10:22 UTC No. 16290890
>>16290876
Just asking here so don't get offended,wouldn't the transition in species be selective?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:14:18 UTC No. 16290894
One issue I've always had is sort of akin to the license plate lecture, yes life is very complex and varied but shouldn't there be more assuming the time scale?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:36:16 UTC No. 16290921
>>16275040
Sure just wait for 2 billion years for the results.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 16:47:14 UTC No. 16290990
>>16290921
prove that 2 billion years is sufficient time by quantifying the rate at which abiogenesis is expected to occur.
>inb4 once every 2 billion years for 50/50 chances hurr
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:00:05 UTC No. 16291003
>>16288711
>Being this brainrotted
Get off your computer.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 11:53:18 UTC No. 16292017
>>16290876
>has been proven.
just not in an observable way in the lab
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:03:37 UTC No. 16292389
>>16292017
Sure, you just have to look at the Galapagos finches. Or any fossils.
Butt of which have been brought into labs before
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:19:40 UTC No. 16292409
>>16292389
theres no indication that they would just keep changing until they were no longer a bird though.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:34:36 UTC No. 16292435
>>16279396
And evolution has it's understood and accepted would never expect or account for a cat breeding with a dog, or for a cow to give birth to a giraffe
You're making the stupidest arguments possible that have been debunked 1000 times due to how easy it is to debunk them if you make the tiniest bit of effort to actually understand the subject you're trying to falsify
And you can't do that via creationism blog posts and books, because the people who write that stuff are the first to misinterpret it
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:01:56 UTC No. 16292487
>>16292409
They're always a bird, in the lame way birds are still dinosaurs. Look up "clades"
You can't ever evolve out of your ancestors
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:56:38 UTC No. 16292567
>>16292487
so the birds really are just lizards? i understand now
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:57:59 UTC No. 16292569
>>16292435
>>16292487
its funny how the fruitflies never become anything other than fruitflies no matter what. they might gain a new pair of wings (which dont work) or some other negative development, but they still just stay what they are.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:58:33 UTC No. 16292778
>>16292569
If you're looking for real time speciation look at the Galapagos finches, I mentioned them in the thread earlier I believe.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:20:34 UTC No. 16292819
>>16292778
some beak changes. thats great. how are they no longer finches or birds anymore? (but hang on, birds are actually lizards anyway)
fruitflies have been observed over many more generations, under much more exaggerated pressures, and they stubbornly remain,
yours faithfully,
fruitflies.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:36:03 UTC No. 16292827
>>16292819
Are you retarded?
If you're not talking about speciation, what are you talking about?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:54:01 UTC No. 16292840
>>16292827
what happens to the fruitflies? they just get wrecked and cant fly and cant reproduce anymore.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:02:02 UTC No. 16292846
>>16292840
What happened to birds? They did just fine.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:13:19 UTC No. 16292909
>>16282264
Why not just start with recreating fermentation? Anaerobic respiration is always the simplest starting point.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 11:31:44 UTC No. 16293314
>>16292846
they did a bird experiment in the lab over many thousands of generations and they became other than a bird?
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 17:17:09 UTC No. 16293623
>>16293314
Yau're asking if they disproved evolution in a lab? No, they've only found evidence for it.
Look up clades
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 17:42:04 UTC No. 16293657
>>16275040
Someone probably already posted it, but search "Synthetic Biology created artificial life". They've done it.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:12:30 UTC No. 16293697
>>16293623
doesn't seem theres anyway to disprove that kind of evolution you want there to be
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:15:51 UTC No. 16293700
>>16293697
Sure there is.
Find a rabbit in the Cambrian, find a human before any other mammals, find a cow giving birth to a chicken
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:19:08 UTC No. 16293704
>>16278780
>demiurge
God I hate this fucker.
Sometimes I think I am the Demiurge.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:24:31 UTC No. 16293709
>>16293657
top article:
Couldn't access the article but the first few lines indicated that pre-existing proteins were used. these have not been seen to form from amino acids in Urey-miller type experiments. Another article which cam up on the same search for that article headline indicated that the minimalist cell they had 'created' was merely one that they had been progressively removing genes from until they found a lower limit beyond which it would not function...and they had no idea what 149 out of 434 genes did anyway.
bottom article:
they replaced some DNA in an already existing bacteria. nice work, but hardly creating life from none life
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:26:41 UTC No. 16293712
>>16293700
>find a cow giving birth to a chicken
lol, now you're being silly. nobody on either side of the issue thinks thats what happens. Well, you guys do, but it takes an unspecified length of time to get from a cow to a chicken. ANd remember anyway that birds are actually lizards
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:28:29 UTC No. 16293714
>>16293712
I see you don't follow your own side closely. Creationists always demand a bird give birth to a crocodile, that's where the whole crocoduck meme came from.
Imagine being literally so retarded you think you can evolve out of having parents.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:34:27 UTC No. 16293721
>>16293714
>Creationists always demand a bird give birth to a crocodile,
serious creationists do not demand that because they are phd biologists, geneticsts chemists etc.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:37:06 UTC No. 16293726
>>16293721
>no true scottsman
I think it's funny that the few scientists you do have signed statements of faith stating they'll never change their view under threat of losing their job.
So can you disprove evolution? It's a falsifiable claim.
If you believe in natural selection and speciation, you believe in evolution, period. That's literally the whole theory.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:39:34 UTC No. 16293731
>>16293726
you'd just think that the thousands and thousands of continuous generations of fruitflies, exposed to all manner of pressures. would show evidence of the kind of evolution you mention
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:42:24 UTC No. 16293739
>>16293726
>>no true scottsman
its not that at all, what a weak argument. sure, some less knowledgeable people who believe in literal creation might make such silly requests, but that in no way detracts from the serious an informed arguments which are put forward.
That you are not even willing to acknowledge the difference between the various levels, which exists in any large group who all agree on some belief, shows how biased you are.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:45:43 UTC No. 16293744
>>16275378
nta, the planet had to cool down
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:45:54 UTC No. 16293745
>>16293731
They probably do, but I don't know about fruitflies. I know about humans, birds, canines, carnivores, and some other stuff.
Look up androgynous retroviruses. Tell me what you think. They link us strongly to other great apes, and more weakly to other mammals as we climb back in the tree. It basically confirms common decent among at least the monkeys, even if you say it's too tentative to include other clades.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:01:02 UTC No. 16293767
>>16293745
It may also indicate a common design feature
https://answersingenesis.org/biolog
>About the author
Dr. Yingguang Liu earned his Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from Ohio University. He currently serves as an associate professor at Maranatha Baptist Bible College.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:04:26 UTC No. 16293777
>>16293767
So if you believe that every species was all created at the same time, as that author claims to, why do you only see species in a linear path along the geological column and never modern ones mixed with extinct ones?
The author also seems to fail to mention that we can re-enable the viruses through minor modification, and they become infectious once again.
His whole conclusion is based on an unsupported claim with no evidence, he just says "what if it was like this" and it was not like that.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:06:09 UTC No. 16293781
>>16293767
Also, the source is shit. Author signed a statement of faith which says this:
>No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
Literally you may as well to admit to ignoring evidence, the same way your "scientist" did.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:48:58 UTC No. 16293831
>>16293781
what about the observed evidence of not enough aminos acids being formed, zero proteins, and also that 10000 generations of fruit flies do nothing but become useless?
Dont you also have to say "what if it was like this" in terms of needing another infinity years to see if life starts in your chemical bath apparatus?
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:52:29 UTC No. 16293843
>>16293831
>not enough amino acids
As in sheer quantity? If that's the issue then surely you could just scale up the experiment.
We've gotten to the point where even people who think the earth is 6 days old have to admit that amino acids can form naturally in great numbers.
>10,000 generations of fruitflies
So you ignore my point? can you actually respond to anything I said?
No, of course not, you're holding your hands over your ears and going "LALALALALALA"
>tu quoque
No, we don't. Once life forms once you'll deny it and cry.
Your god of the gaps arguments are weak.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:58:25 UTC No. 16293851
>>16293843
>As in sheer quantity?
no, as in the ones required for protein formation.
>cant respond to me
you never respond about the fruitflies either
>Once life forms once you'll deny it and cry.
i guess we'll see...at some point in the next infinity years.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:03:54 UTC No. 16293856
>>16293777
>why do you only see species in a linear path along the geological column and never modern ones mixed with extinct ones?
https://answersingenesis.org/fossil
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:05:25 UTC No. 16293860
>>16293851
>no, as in the ones required for protein formation.
Which are missing?
>fruitflys
I said I don't know about them. I can't comment on things I don't know about, not if I'm being honest.
Clearly you disagree, because you know nothing but still try and respond to stuff you can't understand.
>>16293856
>aig
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:30:01 UTC No. 16293885
>>16293860
>Which are missing?
some
>>aig
>no facts can be present on a website i dont like
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:30:46 UTC No. 16293886
>>16293885
AIG has a history of misrepresenting scientific articles. Post the original source.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:41:25 UTC No. 16293898
>>16293886
its a fully referenced article as you would see if you dared load the page.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:46:21 UTC No. 16293905
>>16293898
Post the original source. I can show you exactly where they differ.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:48:35 UTC No. 16293912
>>16293898
>fully referenced
This post is 100% true, and you have down syndrome(1)
(1) example.com/this-means-nothing/if-t
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:49:29 UTC No. 16293913
>>16293657
they only swapped the DNA of the cell with another and had it replicate succesfully
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:59:03 UTC No. 16293925
>>16293905
original source of what? theres more than a dozen papers/articles referenced at the bottom of the page to go with the various claims made. what's difficult about this apart from you refusing to read something because you feel icky about it?
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 21:00:12 UTC No. 16293927
>>16293925
If the data is in the original scientific source, why not post that instead of AIG then?
Just pick a source, tell me why it proves what you say.