[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[Tenchi]

God says the earth brought forth living things. So your guy's imagination doesn't really matter.

"My guy's" imagination has nothing to do with his opposition to abiogenesis. Clearly, you haven't watched his videos; for if you had, you'd know just how scientific (and sophisticated in this regard) his objections to abiogenesis are.

Genesis 1:11 (NASB)
11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:20-25 (NASB)
20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 2:19 (NASB)
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Nothing in these passages from the Creation account in Genesis necessitates abiogenesis. A plain, straightforward reading suggests something more rapid, perhaps even immediate, and that situates God as a direct causal Agent over the creation of living things, not a biochemical process. The last verse cited above from chapter 2 of Genesis, in particular, suggests a very rapid creation process.

It's not just God he's challenging. There are many people who actually understand biochemistry who have pointed out his failure to understand.

You need to watch Dr. Tour's videos. He has not failed to understand; he has refused to go along with fraudulent scientific claims and the generally crappy "research" into abiogenesis.

So if an amatuer disagrees with real biologisrts and biochemists, it doesn't mean much, does it?

Dr. Tour is no amateur. You reveal your ignorance, however, of both his expertise and his scientific challenges to abiogenesis when you write things like this.

 

[Barbarian]

My guy's" imagination has nothing to do with his opposition to abiogenesis. Clearly, you haven't watched his videos; for if you had, you'd know just how scientific (and sophisticated in this regard) his objections to abiogenesis are.

If you think so, why not present the argument you think is most persuasive, and show us? I don't watch videos, but I'm reading his material on line. Tour is over his head when he leaves his profession and tries to understand biology. In science, one is an amateur when one leaves one's own discipline. It's an important point that so many people who object to a science are not actually trained in it.

 

[Barbarian]

Nothing in these passages from the Creation account in Genesis necessitates abiogenesis.

God is very clear that it is.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

That's what abiogenesis is. Scientists are finding more and more evidence that says God is right about the Earth producting life, as He intended. Since the text tells us that the "days" of creation are not literal days, God gives us no information as to how long creation of living things went on.

 

[BeyondET]

"My guy's" imagination has nothing to do with his opposition to abiogenesis. Clearly, you haven't watched his videos; for if you had, you'd know just how scientific (and sophisticated in this regard) his objections to abiogenesis are.

Genesis 1:11 (NASB)
11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:20-25 (NASB)
20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 2:19 (NASB)
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Nothing in these passages from the Creation account in Genesis necessitates abiogenesis. A plain, straightforward reading suggests something more rapid, perhaps even immediate, and that situates God as a direct causal Agent over the creation of living things, not a biochemical process. The last verse cited above from chapter 2 of Genesis, in particular, suggests a very rapid creation process.



You need to watch Dr. Tour's videos. He has not failed to understand; he has refused to go along with fraudulent scientific claims and the generally crappy "research" into abiogenesis.



Dr. Tour is no amateur. You reveal your ignorance, however, of both his expertise and his scientific challenges to abiogenesis when you write things like this.

Where do you think the 10,000 species that humans host came from?

 

[Barbarian]

"My guy's" imagination has nothing to do with his opposition to abiogenesis.

That's more of a lack of faith in God. God says it happened. I believe Him. Your guy should, too.

 

[Tenchi]

Tour is over his head when he leaves his profession and tries to understand biology. In science, one is an amateur when one leaves one's own discipline.

But he doesn't. This is why it's so obvious you're trying to speak to Dr. Tour's arguments and evidence from ignorance of them. It is from his own domain of enormous expertise that Dr. Tour demonstrates that every human effort so far to reproduce abiogenesis has been nonsense.

God is very clear that it is.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

That's what abiogenesis is. Scientists are finding more and more evidence that says God is right about the Earth producting life, as He intended. Since the text tells us that the "days" of creation are not literal days, God gives us no information as to how long creation of living things went on.

I disagree. I won't repeat why, except to point - again - to Genesis 2:19 that confounds the idea of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution.

Where do you think the 10,000 species that humans host came from?

From God, obviously.

That's more of a lack of faith in God. God says it happened. I believe Him. Your guy should, too.

Nope. Dr. Tour has just as much faith in God as you do, I'm sure. But this doesn't require that he pretend the "breakthroughs" in abiogenesis research are anything more than the nonsense they really are.

 

[Barbarian]

But he doesn't. This is why it's so obvious you're trying to speak to Dr. Tour's arguments and evidence from ignorance of them. It is from his own domain of enormous expertise that

He's not a biologist, a geneticist, or a biochemist. He's just a chemist. Which why all those guys who actually know about the subject reject is amateurish ideas.

Dr. Tour demonstrates that every human effort so far to reproduce abiogenesis has been nonsense.

God said that it happened. So that's where I'm staying.

I disagree. I won't repeat why, except to point - again - to Genesis 2:19 that confounds the idea of abiogenesis

The earth bringing forth life is abiogenesis. And of course, whether God created things by abiogenesis, or by special creation, evolution would still work exactly as we see it working today. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God just created the first living things. It doesn't matter to evolutionary theory.

That's something else Tour got wrong. But as you know, he actually doesn't have any training or experience in biology or genetics.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. Dr. Tour has just as much faith in God as you do, I'm sure.

Then why doesn't he just accept it God's way?

But this doesn't require that he pretend the "breakthroughs" in abiogenesis research are anything more than the nonsense they really are.

I've got a long memory. I remember when the work of A.I. Oparin was the cutting edge of abiogenesis. And the skeptics argued that there was no evidence for the predicted:

• Self-catalyzing nucleic acids
• abiotic amino acids
• self-organizing cell membranes
• abiotic nucleotides

Today, we have found all those things predicted by abiogenesis theory. Which is why most biologists accept that the earth really did bring forth life, as God says.

 

[BeyondET]

But he doesn't. This is why it's so obvious you're trying to speak to Dr. Tour's arguments and evidence from ignorance of them. It is from his own domain of enormous expertise that Dr. Tour demonstrates that every human effort so far to reproduce abiogenesis has been nonsense.



I disagree. I won't repeat why, except to point - again - to Genesis 2:19 that confounds the idea of abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution.



From God, obviously.



Nope. Dr. Tour has just as much faith in God as you do, I'm sure. But this doesn't require that he pretend the "breakthroughs" in abiogenesis research are anything more than the nonsense they really are.

Yup from the dirt, which is other animals plants rocks other things where man came from. The process from dirt to man

 

[Tenchi]

He's not a biologist, a geneticist, or a biochemist. He's just a chemist. Which why all those guys who actually know about the subject reject is amateurish ideas.

You don't seem to understand that, according to abiogenesis, before biochemistry, genetics, and organic life there was only inorganic chemistry - the "prebiotic soup" from which life was supposed to have arisen. If one wants to argue for abiogenesis, one must begin with inorganic chemistry about which Dr. Tour is a world-renowned expert. You are, however, attempting - badly - to muddy the waters around the matter of abiogenesis, making out that those expert in the effects of abiogenesis (organic life, biochemistry, genetics) have a negating power over an expert in the necessary predicate to those effects: inorganic chemistry. Well, they don't, as Dr. Tour has demonstrated repeatedly. And with those with whom Dr. Tour has tangled within his own field, I have yet to see any successful refutation of his arguments. So far, their opposition to him has been rhetorical, relying on mere dismissal, insinuation and ad hominem to disguise their lack of effective rebuttal of the actual chemistry in question.

God said that it happened.

No, He didn't.

The earth bringing forth life is abiogenesis.

The earth bringing forth life by God's command in a rapid creation moment is not abiogenesis of the sort commonly proposed by inorganic chemists researching the idea. As Genesis 2:19 indicates, God created living things using the materials of the earth and then brought them to Adam to name, not over the course of billions of years, through some natural, unguided series of chemical accidents, but fully-formed, one after the other, in rapid succession.

And of course, whether God created things by abiogenesis, or by special creation, evolution would still work exactly as we see it working today.

Ah, here, I think, is your real sticking point: the ToE. You aren't committed so much to God's word as to the theory, I suspect. If abiogenesis isn't possible, the ToE, not God's word, gets another hard kick in the shins.

Then why doesn't he just accept it God's way?

??? He does, just not in the way you think he should.

I've got a long memory. I remember when the work of A.I. Oparin was the cutting edge of abiogenesis. And the skeptics argued that there was no evidence for the predicted:

• Self-catalyzing nucleic acids
• abiotic amino acids
• self-organizing cell membranes
• abiotic nucleotides

Today, we have found all those things predicted by abiogenesis theory. Which is why most biologists accept that the earth really did bring forth life, as God says.

Good grief. Just watch Tour's videos. He dismantles all of this nonsense.

 

[Barbarian]

You don't seem to understand that, according to abiogenesis, before biochemistry, genetics, and organic life there was only inorganic chemistry - the "prebiotic soup" from which life was supposed to have arisen.

Actually, I do have degrees in biology, and as you learned, Tour does not understand how organic compounds can abiotically form. He's stuck in the late 70s, before abiotic nucleotides, abiotic amino acids (and short proteins) , and self-catalyzing amino acids were discovered. Not that it's his fault; he's a chemist, not a biologist or a biochemist.

Bottom line for me, though, is that God says it happened. And that's good enough for me. It should be good enough for Tour, too.

The earth bringing forth life by God's command in a rapid creation moment is not abiogenesis of the sort commonly proposed by inorganic chemists researching the idea.

For some of us it is. Science can only say that the evidence shows that it happened. God is the reason it could happen; He made the world so that it would happen.

Ah, here, I think, is your real sticking point: the ToE. You aren't committed so much to God's word as to the theory, I suspect. If abiogenesis isn't possible, the ToE, not God's word, gets another hard kick in the shins.

If you had more faith in God's word, this wouldn't be a problem for you. Because evolution is directly observed to happen, you might as well deny gravity. It's just a fact. But it is a fact that is entirely consistent with God's word, as you have seen. If abiogenesis isn't possible, then God was wrong about the way life began. Why not just trust God's word, if the evidence isn't good enough for you?

Good grief. Just watch Tour's videos. He dismantles all of this nonsense.

I've repeatedly asked people to tell me just one argument that they think is compelling in Tour's video. And no one can find even one. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Tenchi]

He's stuck in the late 70s, before abiotic nucleotides, abiotic amino acids (and short proteins) , and self-catalyzing amino acids were discovered.

The more you write these things, the more obvious it is that you know very little about Dr. Tour.

Science can only say that the evidence shows that it happened.

But it doesn't. Wishful thinking by scientists prompt them to promote abiogenesis as reality, but its all a lot of nonsense.

Because evolution is directly observed to happen, you might as well deny gravity. It's just a fact.

Not the amoeba-to-Man evolution - as Steven Myers and Michael Behe and others point out.

If abiogenesis isn't possible, then God was wrong about the way life began.

No, you are, not God. It was not abiogenesis that brought Adam and Eve into being, as the Genesis account clearly indicates.

Why not just trust God's word, if the evidence isn't good enough for you?

I could ask you the same question. And while I'm at it include: Why don't you better inform yourself about Dr. Tour's position before dismissing it?

I've repeatedly asked people to tell me just one argument that they think is compelling in Tour's video. And no one can find even one. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Tour's video? Seriously? He has dozens of them! And many of them are not the dumbed-down stuff you get from science popularizers like Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. You really should see his latest collection rebutting Dave Farina et al.

 

[Barbarian]

The more you write these things, the more obvious it is that you know very little about Dr. Tour.

I'll bet that I've read more of his actual papers than you have.

Science can only say that the evidence shows that it happened.

But it doesn't.

You're wrong. All those predicted things that were later verified are strong evidence for the theory. That's how you tell a good theory; it makes testable predictions that are later verified.

Wishful thinking by scientists prompt them to promote abiogenesis as reality, but its all a lot of nonsense.

I don't think God is engaging in "wishful thinking" when he tells us that's how life began.

Because evolution is directly observed to happen, you might as well deny gravity. It's just a fact.

Not the amoeba-to-Man evolution - as Steven Myers and Michael Behe and others point out.

If we could show humans evolved form amoebae, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's not how it happened. I know that Meyers has some difficulty getting this, but I think you're wrong about Behe not realizing it. He seems to know about this. He even admits the fact of common descent of living things. Maybe you misunderstood him.

If abiogenesis isn't possible, then God was wrong about the way life began.

No, you are, not God.

He said it. I'm just showing you what He said.

It was not abiogenesis that brought Adam and Eve into being

That would be evolution, as Dr. Behe says.
" To a surprising extent prevailing evolutionary theory and intelligent design are harmonious. Both agree that the universe and life unfolded over vast ages; both agree that species could follow species in the common descent of life. "
Dr. Michael Behe
https://www.discovery.org/a/4097/

(WRT abiogenesis) Why not just trust God's word, if the evidence isn't good enough for you?

I could ask you the same question.

But it wouldn't make any sense for you to do that. I believe God when He says the earth brought forth living things, and you do not.

Why don't you better inform yourself about Dr. Tour's position before dismissing it?

I've read his papers. Nothing there seems to be very persuasive. But why not tell us what in his video, makes you think he is? I'm always surprised by how reluctant his followers are to discuss his beliefs. Why is that? Anyway, just give us one of his arguments against evolution or abiogenesis, and we'll talk about it.

On the other hand, if you don't understand it well enough to discuss it, what makes you think it's right?

 

[TMal3]

Scientifically, evolution enjoys substantial empirical backing

Abiogenesis, however, remains an unproven working assumption in science. Science still has yet to demonstrate that life can spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Scientifically, evolution enjoys substantial empirical backing

Abiogenesis, however, remains an unproven working assumption in science. Science still has yet to demonstrate that life can spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

They’ve given up and decided to start with life already there. Convenient.

 

[Barbarian]

No theory is "proven." We merely collect more data and test its claims to see if they are verified. If enough of them are, the theory is considered correct. Many claims of abiogenesis have been verified, such as self-catalyzing RNA, abiotic amino acids and short proteins, self-organizing cell membranes and much more.

Science still has yet to demonstrate that life can spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

God says it did. I believe Him. But science has not yet absolutely confirmed His word. I don't need scientific verification to believe it.

 

[Barbarian]

They’ve given up and decided to start with life already there. Convenient.

Darwin had no idea how life began, but he realized how new species begin. He just assumed that God created the first living things. The point is that evolution would work the way it does, even if God just poofed the first living things into existence.

In recent decades, more and more information about abiotic processes has been learned, and it all supports the idea that the Earth really did bring forth life as God says.

 

[TMal3]

I used proven in the colloquial sense. Evolution has been 'proven,' abiogenesis remains 'unproven' (empirically unverified, unsubstantiated).

God doesn't say life emerged from nonlife by abiogenesis (we have to be careful not to anachronize and read modern debates back into Genesis 1 where they don't belong. Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths; it doesn't speak to modern science).

Amino acids are old news since Miller-Urey. Self-catalyzing RNA is less a prediction and more a discovery that was hoped to solve the DNA or proteins first chicken-or-egg problem, but it doesn't solve it. And there is no evidence for the abiotic formation of complex phospholipid based "cell membranes." Simple lipid type vessicles, and micelles, yes.

The current sum total scientific evidence today suggests that it is not possible for life to emerge from nonlife via natural processes. Life is not a spontaneous thermodynamic event, and chance 'luck' is not a scientific explanation but an appeal to miracles itself.

 

[Barbarian]

I used proven in the colloquial sense. Evolution has been 'proven,' abiogenesis remains 'unproven' (empirically unverified, unsubstantiated).

Often laymen confuse evolution (the observed phenomenon) with the theory that explains it, or consequences of evolution like common descent.

Vol. 22, No. 6
8 Jun 2022

Catalytic Synthesis of Polyribonucleic Acid on Prebiotic Rock Glasses​

An early episode of life on Earth likely used RNA in both genetic and catalytic roles (the “RNA World”) (White, 1976; Gilbert, 1986). This suggests, but does not require (Hud et al., 2013), an “RNA-First Model” for life's origin on Earth, proposed 60 years ago by Alexander Rich (Rich, 1962).

However, the structure of RNA, once called “a prebiotic chemist's nightmare” (Joyce and Orgel, 1999), is seen by many to be too complex to have emerged spontaneously (Shapiro, 2007). Thus, a persuasive case for the RNA-First Model requires, at a minimum (Robertson and Joyce, 2012), an experimental demonstration of an abiological process that forms oligomeric RNA molecules with lengths sufficient to support Darwinian evolution (Krishnamurthy, 2015), perhaps 50–5000 nucleotides (Joyce, 2012). Furthermore, this process must work without human intervention in an environment likely to have been found during the Hadean.

Rocks available on the Hadean surface were likely driven by the redox state of the Hadean mantle, which was likely not far from modern values (Harrison, 2009; Trail et al., 2011). The surface was likely reworked by bombardment that remelted its mostly mafic (basaltic and diabasic) materials (Pierazzo and Melosh, 2000; Arndt and Nisbet, 2012; Mojzsis et al., 2019). This, in turn, generated air- and liquid water-quenched cryptocrystalline silicates (in common language, glasses) having the diverse composition of the early crust (Melosh, 1989).

In light of this geological context, we asked whether mafic glasses could convert ribonucleosides 5′-triphosphates into polyribonucleic acid. We report here that they can.
The predicted abiotic means for RNA is confirmed.

God doesn't say life emerged from nonlife by abiogenesis

He didn't use that term. But he described it. Abiogenesis is indeed life being brought forth by the Earth.

Amino acids are old news since Miller-Urey.

They proved it could happen in the lab with conditions thought to exist on the early Earth. The Murchison meteorite confirmed the prediction, containing abiotic amino acids and peptides (short proteins).

Murchison Meteorite - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

And there is no evidence for the abiotic formation of complex phospholipid based "cell membranes." Simple lipid type vessicles, and micelles, yes.

The basic cell membrane is extraordinarily simple...

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fd20khd7ddkh5ls.cloudfront.net%2Flipids_phospholipids.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=908ece85c1b3ce64f79e67643baa5e6f033bf8c01626abd31960cf2b515e4cb0&ipo=images

And it spontaneously forms into sheets and vesicles. The fact that the one absolutely essential organelle for cellular life is so simple, is a huge clue.

And as evolutionary theory predicts, such a basic feature has never been replaced. Natural selection merely added things to it over time.

The current sum total scientific evidence today suggests that it is not possible for life to emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

The evidence increasingly shows that God was right; life emerged from non-life, as He created it to do. The evidence has even swayed many IDers and former creationists to that conclusion. Michael Denton, author of Evolution; a Theory in Crisis now acknowledges (in Nature's Destiny) that the evidence shows the universe was made to produce living things.

Life is not a spontaneous thermodynamic event, and chance 'luck' is not a scientific explanation

True, but of course, natural laws aren't about luck. The evidence continues to show that while God did create the first life, He did it in a way creationists consider unapproved.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I used proven in the colloquial sense. Evolution has been 'proven,' abiogenesis remains 'unproven' (empirically unverified, unsubstantiated).

Well it’s actually a theory in crises as real biology doesn’t support the theory. They believe it now in blind faith.

God doesn't say life emerged from nonlife by abiogenesis (we have to be careful not to anachronize and read modern debates back into Genesis 1 where they don't belong. Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths; it doesn't speak to modern science).

I think it speaks perfectly to modern science which cannot answer where life comes and KNOWS that all life seen comes from life, no exceptions.

Amino acids are old news since Miller-Urey.

It was highly controlled, a state not available in nature. Superior intelligence had to design it.

Self-catalyzing RNA is less a prediction and more a discovery that was hoped to solve the DNA or proteins first chicken-or-egg problem, but it doesn't solve it. And there is no evidence for the abiotic formation of complex phospholipid based "cell membranes." Simple lipid type vessicles, and micelles, yes.

Still no life in simple lipid types.

The current sum total scientific evidence today suggests that it is not possible for life to emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

Correct!!

Life is not a spontaneous thermodynamic event, and chance 'luck' is not a scientific explanation but an appeal to miracles itself.

I agree!!