Jump to content


Photo

Abiogenesis.


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#101 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 October 2017 - 12:53 PM

I think these probabilities are misapplied. As has been discussed on the forum before, during the abiogenesis process there would have been selection going on. So while the initial sequences were in essence random, any 'interesting' sequence could have an increased propagation rate.

from my understanding, the DNA strand cannot accumulate enough genetic material to become viable before deleterious mutations renders the strand unviable.

natural selection just isn't the muscleman evolutionists claim it is.

this isn't the only problem.
what would be considered as "first life"?
prokaryotes or eukaryotes?
glansdorf says this:
Life was born complex and the LUCA displayed that heritage. It had the "body "of a mesophilic eukaryote well before maturing by endosymbiosis into an organism adapted to an atmosphere rich in oxygen. Abundant indications suggest reductive evolution of this complex and heterogeneous entity towards the "prokaryotic" Domains Archaea and Bacteria. The word "prokaryote" should be abandoned because epistemologically unsound.

#102 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 October 2017 - 02:24 PM

"What If", to me that sounds like a tacit admission that they want to push eukaryotes further back in time. I may misunderstand but it sounds like gibberish in the sense that he's saying a eukaryotic, prokaryote led to prokaryotes. 

 

I suspect he needs, the "body" for all of this to work.

 

The truth of the matter is that prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells, in real living things, are viably designed biochemistry, and none of it makes sense outside of that context. I mean it really is a guffaw listening to these, "scientists" try and make a monkey out of men, and mud out of cells.



#103 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:00 PM

 

They can come up with explanatory models. And academics try hard on that one. What we can see at the moment are that those models are quite flawed. They do highlight the problems with Materialist Origins as in big bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian Evolution. 
 
But even a workable model won't have certainty of being the real deal.

sure they can.
like the many worlds in one scenario, where a coin toss is magically transformed from a 50/50 chance to a certainty.

 

That's kind of absurd. A kind of "It's true, because I want it to be" argument. 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#104 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 October 2017 - 05:25 PM

"What If", to me that sounds like a tacit admission that they want to push eukaryotes further back in time. I may misunderstand but it sounds like gibberish in the sense that he's saying a eukaryotic, prokaryote led to prokaryotes. 
 
I suspect he needs, the "body" for all of this to work.
 
The truth of the matter is that prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells, in real living things, are viably designed biochemistry, and none of it makes sense outside of that context. I mean it really is a guffaw listening to these, "scientists" try and make a monkey out of men, and mud out of cells.

i think what glansdorf is saying is prokaryotes "evolved" from eukaryotes, not the other way around.

if the above is true, then abiogenesis must not only explain genes and DNA, but also epigenetics and tagged transposons.

i can see a slow, steady, process where genes gradually accumulate to the point where something could actually happen.
this does NOTHING to explain epigenetics or transposons, or why transposons have tags.

tagged transposons certainly seems to indicate a game plan of sorts, and i have no idea how you could explain a restart scenario.

#105 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 October 2017 - 05:27 PM

They can come up with explanatory models. And academics try hard on that one. What we can see at the moment are that those models are quite flawed. They do highlight the problems with Materialist Origins as in big bang, abiogenesis and Darwinian Evolution. 
 
But even a workable model won't have certainty of being the real deal.

sure they can.
like the many worlds in one scenario, where a coin toss is magically transformed from a 50/50 chance to a certainty.

That's kind of absurd. A kind of "It's true, because I want it to be" argument.

my thinking exactly.

i'm surprised koonin would even make such a connection.
it's ridiculous in my opinion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users