Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism

Contemporary Darwinism has quite enough difficulties, thank you, just trying to explain the descent (or if you wish, ascent) of man without adding to the impossible burden the greater impossibility of abiogenesis. For this reason, Darwin's apologists are extremely eager to dissociate themselves from abiogenesis. They claim, very nervously, no doubt, that "evolution does not include abiogenesis."This is because like Haeckel's drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment was completely misleading. Countless millions (including one of my own chemistry professors) cite Miller-Urey as compelling evidence of the naturalistic development of life. It is far - very far from that.To begin with, Miller created a very controlled experiment in a laboratory. Why didn't he experiment in a tidal pool, far more like the "primordial sea" we read about so often?
Miller was a chemist, and added laboratory reagents, and designed the experiment to avoid hydrolysis of amino acids by removing water. Obviously this is something almost impossible to do in the "primordial sea."Miller produced only a small quantity of one amino acid, and a few traces of others, all of them of course racemic mixtures, and not the optically active stereoisomer, of which our own proteins are made.Finally, the early atmosphere looked nothing like that in the Miller experiment. (Science magazine, 1995)Beyond these incredibly vexing (for Darwinists) problems lie even bigger hurdles, as is abundantly evident from the following quote:“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” - Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and biochemistDarwin's seminal book was not called "The Origin of Species NOT COUNTING the First Critter." No, it was called "The Origin of Species." It had precisely one picture/drawing, viz. the "tree of life."Darwin's tree, of course, proposed a single ancestor for all living things. The silliness of attempting to cut the tree off at its base, just AFTER the first living cell is assembled is lost on Darwinists who can do little other than look down at their toes, and drag their shoes around on the floor and try to change the subject when asked about the "origin" of the very first species on earth. It IS, after all, the title of Darwin's book, isn't it.

Off topic please to not respond here to this post.

Modulous wrote: In the same way, we have very good detailed evidence of the history of life on earth, and that all current species have evolved from a very few (perhaps only a single) ancestral species. We do not need to know how life originally arose (although that is, indeed, an interesting question). Life may have arisen from entirely naturalistic means on the surface of the earth; it may have come from interstellar space; it may have been miraculously created ex nihilo by a deity three and a half billion years ago. But it doesn't matter how it came about (as much as we'd like to know), because whatever the origin of life is, the evidence that evolution has occurred over the past several billion years is pretty much indisputable and unambiguous.
==========================Mirabile Auditu responds: IF "it doesn't matter how it came about," then WHY do "EVOLUTIONISTS" (it seems that some of your friends can't countenance being called "Darwinists" for some strange reason, though many of them have no problem hatefully attacking others with pejoratives far worse, e.g. "fundies," and bible thumpers," and "flat earthers" to name but a few) almost universally argue pure naturalistim, devoid of "religious myths"? Are they wrong, or are you? While it is a simple matter for "EVOLUTIONISTS" to mock and ridicule the abject stupidity of "fundies," whether or not they even have a religion, it is inexcusable for practitioners of what is supposed to be PURE and OBJECTIVE "SCIENCE" to be so inconsistent.
First religion is forbidden. Then you argue that it doesn't matter a whit how the first organisms arose."I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." - Physicist Steven Weinberg"We will become god." - Victor Stenger, "Not by Design", page 179Then there's this beauty by Richard Dawkins:"ANyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked."This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-24-2005 11:08 PM

For this reason, Darwin's apologists...Science doesn't deal in philosophy. It deals with impersism. (sic) No apologetics needed.
===============================Mirabile Auditu responds:You must be thinking of "empericism." You almost had me there, misspelling your word of choice two different ways. You clever devil.The very word, "science," is derived from "scientia," Latin for "knowledge." While empericism can and does teach us much, it is not the sole source of scientific knowledge. To pretend, or even to state otherwise is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.
Moreover, it is anti-intellectual to restrict the search for knowledge to naturalistic phenomena. Preconceived notions have a way of misleading people.
============================================... are extremely eager to dissociate themselves from abiogenesis.Never was associated, never has been, never will be. If you are trying to imply some sort of evasion on the part of biologists, you have plenty of targets in the field of origins without having to pick on the evolution camp.
===================Mirabile Auditu responds: The subject is first life. How arbitrary of "EVOLUTIONISTS" to limit discussion when convenient. First, the Miller-Urey experiment is invoked to provide fodder for a naturalistic continuum from the Big Bang to homo sapiens. Then when science advances sufficiently to demonstrate unequivocally how UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE the origin of the first living organism is, then it "never was associated" with "EVOLUTION." Miller-Urey is an icon of evolution, along with other misleading (or trivial) icons such as Haeckel's frauds, peppered moths, and finches.
==============================================They claim, very nervously, no doubt, that "evolution does not include abiogenesis."//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------compare and contrast with the definition of abiogenesis:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis Pronunciation Key (b--jn-ss)
n.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What makes the two similar? Come on, I read them both, they have nothing to do with each other.=============================Mirabile Auditu responds: :::sigh:;::
You're entirely correct. The first organism had "nothing to do" with the second. "Nothing." I must say, it certainly learned to reproduce in a hurry, didn't it."Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan (Citation available for those who wish to know)
=====================================This is because like Haeckel's drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment was completely misleading. Countless millions (including one of my own chemistry professors) cite Miller-Urey as compelling evidence of the naturalistic development of life. It is far - very far from that.blah blah blah Haeckel blah blah blah Urey blah blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about blah blah blahSave it. We've heard it. Your (sic) wrong.
========================Mirabile Auditu: It doesn't take long for an "EVOLUTIONIST" to slide down into ad hominem rudeness, does it? I've posted, what, twice? And Yaro starts in with "blah blah blah" and "Save it. Your (sic) wrong." This is no way to reason together. Alas it is the preferred tactic for "EVOLUTIONISTS."
================================================Have you read any RECENT RESEARCH!!!!! (CAREFUL, YARO ! YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE HEADED...)Let me put it to you this way, 50 years ago, we barely had computers. 50 (sic) years ago we didn't have color tv. 50 (sic) years ago we were in the middle of the cold war.
====================
Mirabile Auditu responds: Fascinating. I had no idea. Really.
Please go on. I'm learning SO much.
========================================Things change! Don't you think things have MOVED ON/ PROGRESSED/ ADVANCED???? Try reading a National Geographic, or Scientific American for christ's sake!
==========================================Mirabile Auditu responds: I must take issue with the invocation of inappropriate language here. Not everyone is an atheist, and taking the Divine's name in vain is rude if not profane. I repeat again, for someone newly welcomed here, this kind of dialogue is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. Nevertheless it is all too common from people who consider themselves self-important and arrogant and condescending. Moderators, please take note and take action if appropriate.===============================================Miller produced only a small quantity of one amino acid, and a few traces of others, all of them of course racemic mixtures, and not the optically active stereoisomer, of which our own proteins are made.I love crap like this:"he made only a small quantity gufaw gufaw... psh..muh muh muh muh..."WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A SMALL QUANTITY! WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU TRIED THE EXPERIMENT?????You act as if the man wouldn't be right less (sic) a pig crawled out of his petri dish fully formed. What the hell did you expect? An entire ecosystem???????
=============================Mirabile Auditu responds:
I would expect GOOD SCIENCE to ensue.
This would include:
1. A recognition of the fact that the conditions were grossly wrong.
2. A recognition of the fact that both the quantity and quality of the paltry few amino acids produced were far more equivocal than is pretended by "EVOLUTIONISTS."
3. A de-emphasis of this icon of evolution, particularly given the emphatic nature of abiogenesis being completely unrelated to EVOLUTION by "EVOLUTIONISTS."
4. Less emotionalism, and vulgarity on your part.
5. Do learn how to write English better, while you're at it.
It's far simpler than thinking and analyzing facts.
=======================================The fact that he got ANYTHING AT ALL is a freakin ACCOMPLISHEMENT (sic) WORTHY OF ACCLAIM!Are you gonna fault Lewie (sic) Pasture for not finding the cure for AIDS as well?"he only found the cure for a few bacterial disease gufaw gufaw... muh muh muh muh...."=============Mirabile Auditu: Do you speak like this in person?
===============================Beyond these incredibly vexing (for Darwinists) problems lie even bigger hurdles, as is abundantly evident from the following quote:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” - Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and biochemistRight... Right right. uhuh... you know what Quote mining is? I have heard Crick speak live and in person and the man by no means disputes evolution or it's (sic) validity.
================Mirabile Auditu responds:
1. First you INSIST that abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with "EVOLUTION."
2. THEN you snivel because I quoted Francis Crick's comment on abiogenesis and YOU link it to "EVOLUTION."You're being anti-intellectual again. Please, a little more consistency on your part, or else we can't even discuss things.
(Should I add "guffaw, guffaw" here?)
===================================Darwin's seminal book was not called "The Origin of Species NOT COUNTING the First Critter." No, it was called "The Origin of Species." It had precisely one picture/drawing, viz. the "tree of life."It is also 150 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY!!!!! Years old!
=================
Mirabile Auditu responds:
You adhere to this ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY year old theory, and embrace it as if it were high tech stuff!In conclusion, not only do I read the magazines cited by Yaro, viz. National Geographic and Science, but my letters have appeared in both of them, usually offering a correction or else a different point of view that the editors respected enough to print.Moderators, please keep this individual under control. He bears watching.

Mirabile Auditu wrote: Then there's this beauty by Richard Dawkins:
"ANyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked."MangyTiger replied:You could at least get the quote right. In full it is (quoted from an article by Dawkins himself in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 3):"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."In the article Dawkins talks about what he meant and why he said it.You should read it.=======================Mirabile Auditu rebuts:I have read, and critiqued, several of Dawkin's entire books, thank you. Moreover I have corresponded with this vile, hateful, socialist atheist via e-mail. I sent him my critiques of several of his books, including incredibly foolish mistakes he published in them. Dawkins has not retracted his vile, hateful language a bit.
In fact, he personally told me that "The Pope is evil."Please spin that how you will. Dawkins' mistakes and inconsistencies will be presented separately in the Thread of Appeal to the Dictators.Meanwhile after only a few exchanges here, I find the arrogant condescension of the "EVOLUTIONISTS" offensive and inappropriate, but wholly consistent with the ongoing debate."EVOLUTIONISTS" : "Try reading a book some time, fundie."

Mick wrote:

quote:

---

But you guys in the US are lucky enough to have an idea called "freedom of speech", which means that I can perfectly legitimately say that your religious views are a load of hokum, silliness, backward thinking reminiscent of thought from the middle ages, harmful to the world, harmful to yourself, stupid and ignorant.

---

Were I to respond in kind the "thoughtful and fair" administrators would rebuke me yet again for violating the "rules."
However any atheist can vent his spleen, and use all manner of slurs, and that's just fine. "If you can't take heated debate, then leave."The "heated debate" is very one-sided here. You have NosyAdministrators who can't spell "criticism" or "ad hominem" but who call ME a "light weight" (sic).RAZD8 scratches up all the dirt he can find from external sources, and calls ME "Spiter" and now this vile slur against Christians in general and me in particular.Why would any civil person want to spend time here with arrogant, condescending, hypocrites like the bunch of you?If a post isn't worth responding to, it should be removed, as is so clearly the case with Hateful Mick's.