(October 24, 2017 at 11:14 am)KevinM1 Wrote: OMFG, Huggy, did you even watch the rest of the video?  It's definitely not the gotcha you think it is.

But, please, keep making our point for us.

---

This is what happens when you're a Google scholar, and you look for headlines to prove your conclusion rather than actually learn things.

As usual you missed the point, there was no "gotcha", I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

(October 24, 2017 at 11:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 11:14 am)KevinM1 Wrote: OMFG, Huggy, did you even watch the rest of the video?  It's definitely not the gotcha you think it is.

But, please, keep making our point for us.

---

This is what happens when you're a Google scholar, and you look for headlines to prove your conclusion rather than actually learn things.

As usual you missed the point, there was no "gotcha", I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

False, because that scientist said nothing of the sort. Indeed, he gave a plausible account of how the first cells could've been formed, and how they could've evolved into what we see today.

Like I asked, did you even watch the video? Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis, but here's the thing: organisms aren't the only things that evolve. Cells do, too. And here's a way in which it could've happened."

(October 24, 2017 at 11:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 11:14 am)KevinM1 Wrote: OMFG, Huggy, did you even watch the rest of the video?  It's definitely not the gotcha you think it is.

But, please, keep making our point for us.

---

This is what happens when you're a Google scholar, and you look for headlines to prove your conclusion rather than actually learn things.

As usual you missed the point, there was no "gotcha", I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

Irrelevant since no one in the field of abiogenesis thinks that contemporary cells are the model for how protocells worked.

And that would include Dr. Jack Szostak, who apparently isn't so despairing of the field that he isn't actually conducting research into it now.

Maybe Szostak didn't get the memo that he doesn't believe abiogenesis is a viable field of scientific study? Set him straight, Huggy! I wouldn't want to see a Nobel Prize winner waste his time on research that you've already concluded is fruitless.

(October 24, 2017 at 11:29 am)KevinM1 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 11:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote: As usual you missed the point, there was no "gotcha", I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

False, because that scientist said nothing of the sort.  Indeed, he gave a plausible account of how the first cells could've been formed, and how they could've evolved into what we see today.

Like I asked, did you even watch the video?  Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis, but here's the thing: organisms aren't the only things that evolve.  Cells do, too.  And here's a way in which it could've happened."

Wait... Am I missing something?

(October 24, 2017 at 11:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

(October 24, 2017 at 11:29 am)KevinM1 Wrote: False, because that scientist said nothing of the sort.

(October 24, 2017 at 11:29 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis,

Isn't that exactly what I said? wouldn't "our cells today" be classified as modern cells?

(October 24, 2017 at 11:25 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: I don’t understand why these people insist on smashing themselves in the face with this particular hammer. It’s not as though the Christian salvation myth stands or falls on a stubbornly mindless reading of Genesis.

Not being a fucking moron is always an option.

I think it's because they view god, the creator, as being at least as important as the salvation myth. It's not enough that Jesus lived, died, was magical, and gave people an out when it comes to eternal life, but that god is all-powerful, built the universe, and that anything regarding creation reinforces the potency of the salvation.

So, we get people going "Nah, man, it's totally plausible that the genetic diversity we enjoy today stemmed from a handful of animals per 'kind' that were trapped on a boat for a long time." Ignoring that, in reality, it takes thousands of animals to maintain a viable population, millions of years for the kind of evolutionary diversification we observe today to work, and, oh yeah, other logistical things like:

How would they separate predator and prey?
How would they account for waste?
How would they account for food (especially for predators, who need meat)?
How would they account for disease, not just among the animals, but animal-to-human transmission?
How would they account for the fact that many larger mammals are extremely territorial (see: bears, wolves, large cats, etc.)?

It's utterly ridiculous all around, and that's not even getting into the idea of a global flood, of which there's absolutely no residual evidence of. But because it comes from the bible, and reinforces the power (if not morality) of their god and chosen avatars of that power, they keep truckin' with it.

---

(October 24, 2017 at 11:35 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 11:29 am)KevinM1 Wrote: False, because that scientist said nothing of the sort.  Indeed, he gave a plausible account of how the first cells could've been formed, and how they could've evolved into what we see today.

Like I asked, did you even watch the video?  Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis, but here's the thing: organisms aren't the only things that evolve.  Cells do, too.  And here's a way in which it could've happened."

Wait... Am I missing something?

(October 24, 2017 at 11:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

(October 24, 2017 at 11:29 am)KevinM1 Wrote: False, because that scientist said nothing of the sort.

(October 24, 2017 at 11:29 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis,

Isn't that exactly what I said? wouldn't "our cells today" be classified as modern cells?

You're making an unwarranted leap. There's no need for whatever was the first life created during abiogenesis to have a modern cell structure. Which is exactly what the video pointed out. That doesn't mean that abiogenesis would be impossible, but rather that cellular evolution would be necessary.

---

Seriously, I can't decide whether you're being willfully ignorant in your desperate attempt to prove one of us wrong, or if you have legitimate issues with reading comprehension. Nothing about our modern cell structure makes abiogenesis impossible. And the video you showed illustrated a very plausible mechanism, based on already observed behavior, for abiogenesis.

A religious person can do science of course, and any conclusion reached by the scientific method is worthy of research regardless of any beliefs/lack of the scientist may have.

So religious people doing good science are possible, it's when providing a supernatural explanation to experiments is when it gets incompatible.

(October 24, 2017 at 11:38 am)KevinM1 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 11:35 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Wait... Am I missing something?




Isn't that exactly what I said? wouldn't "our cells today" be classified as modern cells?

You're making an unwarranted leap.  There's no need for whatever was the first life created during abiogenesis to have a modern cell structure.  Which is exactly what the video pointed out.  That doesn't mean that abiogenesis would be impossible, but rather that cellular evolution would be necessary.

---

Seriously, I can't decide whether you're being willfully ignorant in your desperate attempt to prove one of us wrong, or if you have legitimate issues with reading comprehension.  Nothing about our modern cell structure makes abiogenesis impossible.  And the video you showed illustrated a very plausible mechanism, based on already observed behavior, for abiogenesis.

(October 24, 2017 at 11:29 am)KevinM1 Wrote: Because he very clearly said "Our cells, today, wouldn't allow for abiogenesis,

*emphasis mine*

You claim a statement I made is false, then turn around and say the exact same thing I said, just worded differently... and you want to talk about MY reading comprehension level.

Right now you're talking in circles.

Fuck. Here we go.

(October 24, 2017 at 11:02 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:53 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Man, you really are out of your depth.  You don't know the first thing of what you're talking about.  It seems you barely understand the basic definitions of the words science, abiogenesis and genetics, let alone know anything about them.

You're an embarrassment.

Starting at 3:22 of the above video.

Quote:Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bi-layer. The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier. modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface, But life didn't have to start with modern chemicals!

You were saying?

But you don't understand the subjects you are posting about.  All you're doing is searching for anything that supports your beliefs, and accepting it's true.

---

(October 24, 2017 at 11:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 11:14 am)KevinM1 Wrote: OMFG, Huggy, did you even watch the rest of the video?  It's definitely not the gotcha you think it is.

But, please, keep making our point for us.

---

This is what happens when you're a Google scholar, and you look for headlines to prove your conclusion rather than actually learn things.

As usual you missed the point, there was no "gotcha", I simply stated that scientists theorize that abiogenesis would be impossible based on how modern cells work.

Was that statement true or false?

False.  Just how many scientist say this?

---

(October 24, 2017 at 11:35 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Isn't that exactly what I said? wouldn't "our cells today" be classified as modern cells?

And there would be no difference between modern cells structure and cell structure billions of years ago?

One would have to study the synthesis of organic compounds on the early earth, ideas about the RNA origins and the origins of chirality etc;

Weird thing, scientists have done this.

It's like the oft repeated Information canard repeated by the scientifically illiterate.

The evidence is out there; google scholar is your friend.

Or Morton's Demon on your shoulder.

Whatever.