Conference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a Standstill

Supposition is thinking that some entirely metaphysical creator magically created everything out of nothing, and that there's no objective evidence for this magical creator for reasons not yet mentioned.

 

Evolutionists can not explain the Origins of Life. They will say that it is a totally different field of study. But that field can not explain it either, and evolution had to start sometime if it were real.

So where does the Origin of Life end and Evolution begin?

 

ie... the abiogenesis?

Neither do the religious. ie.. from dust, dirt, mudd; magic (is not an explanation.

Heck that knowledge has evolved well beyond any theological description, and you know it.

abiogenesis.......

ie.... the molecular interactions of the base elements to form a living thing (abiogenesis)

The true field requires chemistry, physics, themodynamics and common sense. The problem is, within the current paradigm the speed being the root of observing 'energy' is incorrect (kinetic).

The energy between mass is electromagnetic (light) and that is the reason abiogenesis of base elements is not understood within an evolutionary scope.

the same time time began

the same time time began

ie.. we live within the process, and no one has been 'in the beginning' as that is the very linear thinking of the speed problem within the sciences.


basically, you are a victim of the bike ride too (the speed problem).


if you look up the current sciences you would see what is happening with light all over the world. YOu are in the middle of a paradigm shift and dont even know it.

"stand on the shoulders of giants"

 

Ahhh, no...http://www.google.com/search?q=myth...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

Google negative term:
Get links about negative:
Therefore: god?

Really?

 

Punctuated equilibrium is an important but often-misinterpreted model of how evolutionary change happens. Punctuated equilibrium does not:

 

Charles Darwin helped popularize the idea that the mysterious "natural selection" process was able to transform one creature into a completely different one. This concept harbors the sinister implication that nature, although actually inert and impotent, nevertheless has the apparent volition to act and even the intelligence to select certain traits from a set of options.
Changes certainly do occur between generations of living things, but they are not the result of nature actively doing anything. They are instead the result of adaptive programming inside well-designed bodies of living things. Even when a change is caused by a random mutation, the adaptive programming within cells of the developing body is able to work around the deficiency.

 

Do you have any reading comprehension or are you gust generally obtuse. Where did I say that evolution doesn't occur? The topic is large changes, how one being becomes another. Punctuated equilibrium is the method that explains this and is the current working theory. I suggest you go take some SAT verbal help classes and come back when you can understand what the other guy wrote.

 

In the same way as evolution it is based on deductive reasoning.

Lol. ID then in the same way as evolution is A combination of induction and deduction. Just like most concoctions you have. Lol so what is % of each is in yourdrink? I do not mix – drink it all straight.

Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html and show me a page with inductive reasoning.
Can you see a page with concoctions in the theories I linked to? Show me a page with inductive reasoning. Did you pay any attention to my links? Yes? No?

How would a layman who is not interested to read all this boring stuff would know which one is which? What is the litmus test, so that even a 4th grader would understand?

 

Lol. ID then in the same way as evolution is A combination of induction and deduction. Just like most concoctions you have. Lol so what is % of each is in yourdrink? I do not mix – drink it all straight.

Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html and show me a page with inductive reasoning.
Can you see a page with concoctions in the theories I linked to? Show me a page with deductive reasoning. Did you pay any attention to my links? Yes? No?

How would a layman who is not interested to read all this boring stuff would know which one is which? What is the litmus test, so that even a 4th grader would understand?

I have been waiting for the answer, but it is obvious that you are not capable, yet you think you can around littering the treads related to scince with meaningless fanaticals beliefs. I am giving U2 the last chance. can you answer the bolded red? Or you just spew words not even caring about any meaning behind them?

How old are U2? I hope I am not speaking whith 13 years olds. Am I?

 

No it doesn't. Selection is based purely upon competition and survival between groups. There's no intelligence required; if an individual is dead, it will not pass on its genetics to future generations. This is a basic system of selection requiring no oversight from any sort of intelligence.

There is no more intelligence required for natural selection than there is for hot air to rise and cool air to fall. Selection--and apparently complex patterns--does not require intelligence, it requires only a set of rules.

They are the result of changes in allele frequencies, with new configurations of alleles being tested against the environment an organism lives in. Configurations that perform better than normal reproduce more effectively, whole those that perform worse reproduce less effectively and are weeded out.

Mutations are not necessarily deficiencies.

 

We have no scientific proof of anything you stated. That would make it your opinion, which is fine. But it is not the facts as we can measure or observe.

 

modern bacteria dont have nuclei. of the three domains of life, two of them lack a nuclei. biology 101

also, the nucleus of eukaryotes isnt made from proteins. its made of phospholipids. there are proteins on the membrane of the nucleus, but the membrane itself isnt made from proteins. again, biology 101

 

why do you have to have the answer to that question right now? truth is, we dont know how life started (we have ideas, but we dont know). but that doesnt mean that we have to jump to the conclusion, "god did it".

scientists will continue to say "we dont know", until some evidence comes along and lets them know, whatever conclusion that might lead to. thats the only rational way of thinking about it.

 

You Don't Know, is the truthful answer to evolution in general. What is considered fact today, will be replaced with another fact next month.

With that track record, the whole hypothesis is a big failure.

 

the mechanisms that drive evolution, do exist. they are facts. iv'e personally witnessed some of them in a lab.

when you understand what the mechanisms that drive evolution are, you understand that what you might call "macro-evolution" is not only likely, its inevitable.

your not going to accept that, and thats fine, but dont pretend like you have some knowledge about bio-chemistry, that other people dont have. fact is, biologists know more about biology than you do.

 

I am no biochemist, but I can think, and evolution is nonsensical.

For evolution to be a fact we must be able to observe the transitional creatures that have not yet become a cow or a Robin and, the creatures that used to be a cow or a Robin. According to the evolutionists (until they are cornered on this), evolution is a slow steady process. If that is true then where are ANY of the intermediate life forms? A mutation or adaptation is not evidence of evolution.

 

Here is a question for a biochemist; how many chemicals are present in a common single celled animal (pick one)? How many combinations of those chemicals are there?

Does all life have DNA? How many building blocks are in a simple strand of DNA? How many combinations are possible using the equal number of building blocks? Do the building blocks have to be in an exact sequence to live and thrive? What mechanism in a single celled creature causes it to divide and how and why does that process begin within the cell?

 

no, it is not. everything we know about the chemistry of a cell supports evolution

every organism on the planet is a transitional form. thats not good enough for you, i understand that, but its the way it is.

when concerning transitional forms (as you would define them) in the fossil record, you have to understand something. not everyhting that dies turns into a fossil. most everything that falls down and the ground and dies will decay completely. for a fossil to form, conditions have to be perfect. the fact that we have any fossils at all is amazing. we are never going to have fossils of every species that has ever lived, its an impossible request.

also, what would qualify as a transitional form? would a fish that can walk on land and breathe air qualify?

what about therapod dinosaurs with feathers?

reptiles with fur?

mammals that lay eggs?

truth, you are so set in what you beleive, that nothing is going to change your mind. if i showed you an example of exactly what you were asking for, youd turn around say "now theres two transitional forms missing".

you clearly dont undersand evolution at all. if you are truly interested in learning about it, even for the sake of picking it apart, go read a textbook about biochemistry. until then, everything in nonsensical to people who actually know something about it.

 

thats an impossible question to answer, because there is no standard. every species has chemicals present that another species doesnt.

im fairly certain that all life has DNA yes. if not DNA, all life has to have some form of genetic material, whether it be DNA or RNA, although im not sure if there are any organisms that only have RNA.

depends on what you consider a building block. DNA and RNA or made of 3 parts. a nucleo base, a sugar (deoxyribose in DNA, ribose in RNA), and a phosphate group bonded to the sugars.

i should not that there are some organisms that are capable of using aresnic instead of phosphorus, so a DNA molecule con be stable with at least arsenic as well.

there are 4 nucleic bases in DNA. adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. there are also four in RNA, although thymine is replaced by uracil.

in the pairng of bases, cytosine must be paired with guanine, and adenine must be paired with thymine (or uracil in RNA). so the number of possible combinations on any step in the DNA ladder is 2, unless you count orientation of the bases, then there is 4.

in the building of amino acids, every 3 (im not sure if there are cases where its more than 3, but typically its 3) base pairs correspond to a specific amino acid.

some amino acids can correspond to more than one combination of bases.

several mechanisms contribute to cell division. replication of DNA (which is somewhat complicated but i can explain it if you want me to), growth of the cell, etc. the process begins when a cell chemically signals itself depending on environmental factors, and internal chemical factors. i dont know the specifics about the chemistry (names of the chemicals, etc), but im fairly certain thats where we are going next semester.

 

Thanks for taking the time for the class work.

many of the un-natural minds, need to comprehend more of nature!

but you have choice. You can be and are more than a reduction of chemical processes. ie.... you absorb energy from outside the bubble and process to 'support life to continue'.


The difference of the chemical descriptions and the natural actuality is the 'energy' of the mass, is what is causing the 'processs' to continue.

ie.... the processes of life, within that bubble, are different when dead (same mass can be present but the life (process) stops)

When alive, the process is and will always be associated (reliant) upon the environment (what is outside that bubble)

 

your welcome

well yeah, i know that the chemical reaction that is me is entirely dependednt on an outside source of energy.

i just thought it was a cool quote, so i put it in my sig

 

NB, i realised to late to edit, but there are some spelling mistakes in my above post, and at least once i used the term "amino acid" when i should have said protein, but hopefully you get the idea

 

this isnt a legitimate question.

the earth existed before life existed, so of course any life that developed on the earth would have been uniquely adapted to the earth's environment.

regardless, we know of bacteria that can survive in the vaccum of space, so you can change things about an organisms environment, and it wont necessarily destroy that organism.

as more complex life evolved, they became more specialised, and relied on stricter conditions.

 

No its not it is a question Darwin himself had trouble answering. Remember evolution is not Darwin. The theory of evolution has existed since the ancient Greeks. What Darwin did was provide the theory of natural selection, the means by which evolution is directed. Darwin was asked numerous times exactly how inferior transitional species that were not better than their predecessor somehow survived.