Question evolution

Originally posted by sonhouse
Louis Pasteur. Wow, only the latest data for you.

After it is declared a LAW, what new data can anyone provide?

Originally posted by RJHinds
After it is declared a LAW, what new data can anyone provide?

Ok., that's quite clever. Every now and again scientific laws are overturned (see Kuhn, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, for example). So, if we overturn the 'law' of biogenesis then why not overturn all the ones that you need overturning for your creation story to work?

Biological laws aren't universal beyond this planet - or at least we have no evidence that they are - or indeed evidence that they aren't. Also one wouldn't expect the rules to be unchanging as the sun heats up, for one thing, and as the composition of the atmosphere changes, as it is believed to have. Whenever a scientific law is overturned it actually normally survives as a special case of a more general law. So in the case of biogenesis/abiogenesis one would have something along the lines of a law that in a sterile environment life can only occur through abiogenesis, but where life is present new life can only come from old life, as the conditions for abiogenesis have passed.

At the risk of annoying the biologists present, I'll also make the claim that there is a difference in quality between physical laws and biological laws. Physics has the advantage over all other sciences that experiments are far more controllable - in biology the subject of the experiment can run away - this won't happen in a physics experiment. The systems we look at are more simple, and more straightforwardly mathematical. While you may be able to dispute abiogenesis - which is far from being a complete theory - you are on really dubious ground disputing the various physics laws you need to be broken for your creation story to work.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Ok., that's quite clever. Every now and again scientific laws are overturned (see Kuhn, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, for example). So, if we overturn the 'law' of biogenesis then why not overturn all the ones that you need overturning for your creation story to work?

Biological laws aren't universal beyond this planet - or at least we ha ...[text shortened]... ground disputing the various physics laws you need to be broken for your creation story to work.

I don't recall suggesting any real scientific LAWS be broken to conform to evolution or creation since uniformitarianism is no more a law than is catastrophism.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes RJ I know what the rule of biogenesis says. Did you understand my post?

He doesn't read others posts. He has said it himself.
He just give a youtube at random and hope that noone will notice...

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes RJ I know what the rule of biogenesis says. Did you understand my post? Do you understand that there is a difference between the modern theory of abiogenesis and the ancient theory of spontaneous generation? Do you understand the point that abiogenesis would not be expected to naturally occur in the modern world or pretty much at any time since th ...[text shortened]... oxygen catastrophe? Do you think I will respond well if you attempt to treat me like an idiot?

The only difference between the idea of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is that abiogenesis only happened one time in the past and no longer happens.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only difference between the idea of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is that abiogenesis only happened one time in the past and no longer happens.

Oh, you don't say? So there was a abiogenesis once? When matter turned to life?

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. The Earth was formed about 4.54 billion years ago." according to wikipedia.

Well, this we must believe in, mustn't we?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, you don't say? So there was a abiogenesis once? When matter turned to life?

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. The Earth was formed about 4.54 billion years ago." according to wikipedia.

Well, this we must believe in, mustn't we?

However, only biogenesis is known to have happened and that LAW does not conflict with creation by a living God, but it does conflict with abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, because life must come from something that is not living, like a rock, for that to work.

Only and idiot would believe life came from a rock.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only difference between the idea of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is that abiogenesis only happened one time in the past and no longer happens.

No, there are other differences between the theories. In spontaneous generation complex organisms, such as mice, were thought to be created. In abiogenesis very simple single celled organisms are thought to have been created.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, there are other differences between the theories. In spontaneous generation complex organisms, such as mice, were thought to be created. In abiogenesis very simple single celled organisms are thought to have been created.

Haven't you heard that they have discovered that cells are not simple, but very complicated.

http://x-evolutionist.com/the-origin-of-life-how-did-life-begin-dna-could-not-have-happened-by-chance/#2

Originally posted by RJHinds
Haven't you heard that they have discovered that cells are not simple, but very complicated.

http://x-evolutionist.com/the-origin-of-life-how-did-life-begin-dna-could-not-have-happened-by-chance/#2

Simple compared to mice you frigging pathetic self lobotomized creationist freak.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Haven't you heard that they have discovered that cells are not simple, but very complicated.

http://x-evolutionist.com/the-origin-of-life-how-did-life-begin-dna-could-not-have-happened-by-chance/#2

That depends on the cell.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That depends on the cell.

Any cell with the ability to reproduce needs DNA and DNA is not simple.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Any cell with the ability to reproduce needs DNA and DNA is not simple.

No, RNA is sufficient as a replicating molecule. The very earliest cells could have used RNA for coding and catalysis. But RNA is unstable relative to DNA, and there are 20 different amino-acids meaning proteins are more versatile. So there will have been a selection advantage from quite early on for cells that could use DNA for coding and proteins for catalysis. RNA is complex, but not as complex as DNA.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, only biogenesis is known to have happened and that LAW does not conflict with creation by a living God, but it does conflict with abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, because life must come from something that is not living, like a rock, for that to work.

[b]Only and idiot would believe life came from a rock.[/b]

"Only and idiot would believe..." 😵
Do you even speak your own native language? Or is it Alzheimer again...?
"Only and idiot"...? 🙂

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, RNA is sufficient as a replicating molecule. The very earliest cells could have used RNA for coding and catalysis. But RNA is unstable relative to DNA, and there are 20 different amino-acids meaning proteins are more versatile. So there will have been a selection advantage from quite early on for cells that could use DNA for coding and proteins for catalysis. RNA is complex, but not as complex as DNA.

The observable science shows that RNA comes from DNA. RNA does not make DNA.

The central dogma of molecular biology explains that DNA codes for RNA, which codes for proteins. DNA is the molecule of heredity that passes from parents to offspring. It contains the instructions for building RNA and proteins, which make up the structure of the body and carry out most of its functions.


Inside the cells of all living things, tiny molecular machines are constantly reading the information in DNA and using it to build proteins. In exploring the activity below, you will learn about the three types of RNA are essential to this process: messenger RNA (mRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), and ribosomal RNA (rRNA).

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/molecules/centraldogma/