Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
What part of, “See Johnson et al (2008)” do you have a problem with?

If you don’t want to read the original paper, there are a number of pop-science articles online about the retesting which you can find with ordinary Google.

rossum
Click to expand...
You either don’t know the answer or do not want to tell us what was added.
 
buffalo said:
You either don’t know the answer or do not want to tell us what was added.
Click to expand...
Your mind reading powers have failed you,buffalo. You do not know what I think. Go and read the paper if you want to know what happened. It is described there.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Your mind reading powers have failed you,buffalo. You do not know what I think. Go and read the paper if you want to know what happened. It is described there.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm - another strike.,.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Miller-Urey is taught to school-kids and college students without 4 key bits of data
  1. When amino acids in solution are sparked they break-down and so a reservoir was included in Miller’s 1953 apparatus, out of the system loop, to protect any generated amino acids from breakdown via the week long sparking of the CH4, H2, NH3 gaseous, and water vapour, mix.
  2. Miller’s 1953 experiment only produced 11 out of 20 necessary amino acids and the experiment wrongly excluded Oxygen which the earth had.
  3. Miller’s experiment produced a 50/50 mix of L and R handed amino acids, the R hand versions of which stop any possible synthesis of cellular protein, all of which are essentially L handed. No follow on experiment in the 65 years since has produced cellular type proteins.
  4. Miller’s yield of amino acids (among the gloop of tarry carcinogens) was tiny: 1.05% glycine and 0.75% alanine, with traces of 9 and another 9 missing altogether.
    Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
Of course there was a reservoir. The experiment tried to mimic actual conditions. And any compounds generated would settle out. Why would you continually pass exactly the same amounts of gas plus any compunds generated through the same system?

The experiment produced 22 amino acids. Not 11. His results were tested again in 2008 with, obviously, much more accurate equipment.

So what if it produced a mix of left hand and right hand amino acids? As long as right handed are produced it could lead to protein. That’s like you saying that if half the people in the world are infertile then no more children will be born.

And the experiment didn’t set out to produce a set amount of anything. Saying that it failed because there wasn’t much is just you setting your own personal limits. You could make the same accusation however much amino acid was produced. Hence your comment is irrelevent.
Click to expand...
in real life there is no tapped reservoir; the whole system remains open to any sparking

you say 22 amino acids were produced according to a 55 post experiment re-evaluation. Share the data with us including the % of each of the 22 amino acids
 
Uriel1 said:
you say 22 amino acids were produced according to a 55 post experiment re-evaluation. Share the data with us including the % of each of the 22 amino acids
Click to expand...
Still does not want to disclose what was added.
 
The reservoir is the planet. And if you want to know how many amino acids there were you need to check web sites other than the creationist ones that you are using. They will not give you all the information you need to make educated comments.

What they will do is bend the truth, add comments that are not supported by the facts and omit anything that does not support their agenda.

Here is one article that mentio s the additional acids: Vials From Miller-Urey Experiment Offer New Hints on Origin of Life - The New York Times

Now if you post anything that contradicts what you have been told, could you please let us know where you are getting the information from so we can ascertain its validity.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Uriel1:
you say 22 amino acids were produced according to a 55 post experiment re-evaluation. Share the data with us including the % of each of the 22 amino acids
Click to expand...
Still does not want to disclose what was added.
Click to expand...
Unless I’m mistaken it was eye of newt and toe of frog.

Listen, nobody wants to play 20 questions. If you have something useful to say then bring it to the table and surprise us.
 
And to possibly prevent you wasting our time yet again, check out the results of a further experiment done circa 2007.

‘Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.’ Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment - Scientific American
 
Bradskii said:
And to possibly prevent you wasting our time yet again, check out the results of a further experiment done circa 2007.

‘Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.’ Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment - Scientific American
Click to expand...
Close… but no cigar
 
James Ferris, a prebiotic chemist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., doubts that atmospheric electricity could have been the only source of organic molecules. “You get a fair amount of amino acids,” he says. “What you don’t get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids.” Meteors, comets or primordial ponds of hydrogen cyanide would still need to provide those molecules.
 
Last edited:
So now you are quoting someone who is actively looking at the science of abiogenesis and has suggestions for how it all started.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to quote people who are certain that it was a natural phenomenon and are proposing any number of ways how it could have happened.
 
it’s because I am able to deal with truth wherever it comes from

Abiogenesis simply means “without life generation” or not possible
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
it’s because I am able to deal with truth wherever it comes from

Abiogenesis simply means “without life generation” or not possible
Click to expand...
I guess you opted out of the classics when you went to school.
 
examine the etymology of “biogenesis” after Pasteur, and consider what the “a” in abiogenesis means
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
examine the etymology of “biogenesis” after Pasteur, and consider what the “a” in abiogenesis means
Click to expand...
1870 September 17, Thomas Henry Huxley:

‘And thus the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter, took definite shape; […] It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis ; and I shall term the contrary doctrine—that living matter may be produced by not living matter—the hypothesis of Abiogenesis’.
 
Last edited:
As I said “without life genesis” - turns out to have been an utterly nonsensical proposition from atheists (that no lab test has been able to demonstrate) so fantasy, not science
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
As I said “without life genesis” - turns out to have been an utterly nonsensical proposition from atheists (that no lab test has been able to demonstrate) so fantasy, not science
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
So you don’t think that God could have set things up so that it happened naturally? That is, according to rules that would align with sciencific laws?

Now I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but as God is omnipotent then your only answer could be: ‘Yes, He could have arranged it that way, but we haven’t been able to discover the exact method yet’.

At which point we will be agreeing with each other.
 
But that’s not what scripture says, @Bradskii. It says he created all the animals (each one) according to their (its) own kind
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
But that’s not what scripture says, @Bradskii. It says he created all the animals (each one) according to their (its) own kind
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
Click to expand...
Then I’m really not sure why you bother checking out all your creation sites and digging up information that you think disproves abiogenesis. It really is beyond me why you are wasting your time (and some of mine) in this nonsensical charade.

It really would be to everyone’s benefit if you simply said something along the lines of: ‘Scripture says that God created all the kinds as per Genesis so I am unwilling and even unable to even contemplate any other explanation’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top