The Sheer and Utter Implausibility of Abiogenesis and Evolution

Arkycharlie

Super Member
Google the phrase "is there a plausible theory for abiogenesis". You will find this:

The theory of abiogenesis posits that the first lifeforms which arose from the primordial soup were simple organisms that gradually became more complex throughout aeons.
Wow! How's that for a theory that is in essence the supposed trigger event that "throughout the aeons" resulted in:
  1. Every living organism that has ever existed in the earth's biosphere
  2. The rise of humans, body and MIND (Consciousness)!
  3. And by extension, all the knowledge gained by humans and every accomplishment of the human race throughout history!
Now, we address the plausibility of "evolution".

In a very real sense, “evolution” is a "theory" chasing its tail. “Random mutation and natural selection” require multiplication and heritability, (provided by DNA), but there has never been a plausible theory of the origin of multiplication and heritability apart from DNA. See attached research paper addressing the subject, available online Here
Go here and you will find the following

What Is a Theory?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

I rest my case.
 

Attachments

  • Is_pre-Darwinian_evolution_plausible.pdf
    725.3 KB · Views: 6
but there has never been a plausible theory of the origin of multiplication and heritability apart from DNA.
This is false, you have been misinformed by your sources. There are various hypotheses for abiogenesis, which include at least three different information carriers: DNA, RNA and proteins. There may be others.

See RNA world for one non-DNA hypothesis.
 
Google the phrase "is there a plausible theory for abiogenesis". You will find this:


Wow! How's that for a theory that is in essence the supposed trigger event that "throughout the aeons" resulted in:
  1. Every living organism that has ever existed in the earth's biosphere
  2. The rise of humans, body and MIND (Consciousness)!
  3. And by extension, all the knowledge gained by humans and every accomplishment of the human race throughout history!
It is not clear what your argument is. Are you saying that because we do not know exactly what happened 4 billion years ago, it cannot be abiogenesis? Can you explain your reasoning?

At best, surely all we can say is that we do not know if it was abiogenesis or not?

Now, we address the plausibility of "evolution".

In a very real sense, “evolution” is a "theory" chasing its tail. “Random mutation and natural selection” require multiplication and heritability, (provided by DNA), but there has never been a plausible theory of the origin of multiplication and heritability apart from DNA. See attached research paper addressing the subject, available online Here
Why do you say "apart from DNA"? It sounds like you think evolution rejects DNA, which is clearly not true. The paper you like to is talking about what happened before evolution, which may be is confusing you.

Go here and you will find the following

What Is a Theory?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.
So we agree that evolution is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

What is your point?

I rest my case.
May need some more work.
 
Google the phrase "is there a plausible theory for abiogenesis". You will find this:


Wow! How's that for a theory that is in essence the supposed trigger event that "throughout the aeons" resulted in:
  1. Every living organism that has ever existed in the earth's biosphere
  2. The rise of humans, body and MIND (Consciousness)!
  3. And by extension, all the knowledge gained by humans and every accomplishment of the human race throughout history!
Now, we address the plausibility of "evolution".

In a very real sense, “evolution” is a "theory" chasing its tail. “Random mutation and natural selection” require multiplication and heritability, (provided by DNA), but there has never been a plausible theory of the origin of multiplication and heritability apart from DNA. See attached research paper addressing the subject, available online Here
Go here and you will find the following

What Is a Theory?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

I rest my case.
Life began when a lightning bolt struck a rock sitting in a mud puddle. That rock gradually became more complex throughout aeons.

In fact it seems as if evos have these rocks for brains.
 
Google the phrase "is there a plausible theory for abiogenesis". You will find this:


Wow! How's that for a theory that is in essence the supposed trigger event that "throughout the aeons" resulted in:
  1. Every living organism that has ever existed in the earth's biosphere
  2. The rise of humans, body and MIND (Consciousness)!
  3. And by extension, all the knowledge gained by humans and every accomplishment of the human race throughout history!
Now, we address the plausibility of "evolution".

In a very real sense, “evolution” is a "theory" chasing its tail. “Random mutation and natural selection” require multiplication and heritability, (provided by DNA), but there has never been a plausible theory of the origin of multiplication and heritability apart from DNA. See attached research paper addressing the subject, available online Here
Go here and you will find the following

What Is a Theory?
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

I rest my case.
I Googled the phrase. I did not get that.
I got this;
The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, that explains the origin of life from the gradual organization of inorganic chemical compounds in the environment of Earth billions of years ago, is one of the strongest proposals to support the Theory of Abiogenesis.
I think you are cherry picking.
 
I Googled the phrase. I did not get that.
I got this;
The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, that explains the origin of life from the gradual organization of inorganic chemical compounds in the environment of Earth billions of years ago, is one of the strongest proposals to support the Theory of Abiogenesis.
I think you are cherry picking.
Of course, everyone knows that Oparin-Haldane does not explain the origin of life. First off, it was developed before we knew about DNA/RNA hereditary information which didn't become knowledge until Watson and Crick in 1952 while Oparin published his work in 1923 and Haldane published his in 1929. So they could not have known that DNA needed protein and that protein needed DNA for their continued existence. Or as some refer to as the chicken and the egg problem. The Neo-darwinist's answer is always, "they're working on it", so what they have is that some day the problem will be solved but in the mean time there is no plausible theory for abiogenesis. All that we currently have is the law of biogenesis which is that life only springs from life which is not a theory but rather an observation.
 
So they could not have known that DNA needed protein and that protein needed DNA for their continued existence. Or as some refer to as the chicken and the egg problem.
DNA functions as information storage. RNA functions as information storage, but not as well as DNA does. Proteins function as chemical catalysts. RNA also functions as a chemical catalyst, but not as well as proteins do.

RNA can function in both roles, albeit not as well as the specialists; it is a jack-of-all-trades.

Hence the RNA world hypothesis for the origin of life avoids the chicken and egg problem by having RNA perform both functions. Later DNA took over the information storage function and proteins took over the catalyst function. That left RNA as the intermediate between the two: ribosomal RNA, tRNA and mRNA are still in place for the connection between DNA and a protein.
 
Of course, everyone knows that Oparin-Haldane does not explain the origin of life. First off, it was developed before we knew about DNA/RNA hereditary information which didn't become knowledge until Watson and Crick in 1952 while Oparin published his work in 1923 and Haldane published his in 1929. So they could not have known that DNA needed protein and that protein needed DNA for their continued existence. Or as some refer to as the chicken and the egg problem. The Neo-darwinist's answer is always, "they're working on it", so what they have is that some day the problem will be solved but in the mean time there is no plausible theory for abiogenesis. All that we currently have is the law of biogenesis which is that life only springs from life which is not a theory but rather an observation.
I was only pointing out the fallaciousness of Arky's google search claim.
Oparin and Haldane didn't need to know about DNA/RNA. They knew the kinds of chemicals involved in simple living things and came up with a theory of how they may have originated. At the time it was a plausible theory.
 
I was only pointing out the fallaciousness of Arky's google search claim.
Oparin and Haldane didn't need to know about DNA/RNA. They knew the kinds of chemicals involved in simple living things and came up with a theory of how they may have originated. At the time it was a plausible theory.
At the time it was a plausible theory but it just upsets me that the literature portrays the theory as if it were still a viable theory with a statement like, "The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, that explains the origin of life from the gradual organization of inorganic chemical compounds in the environment of Earth billions of years ago, is one of the strongest proposals to support the Theory of Abiogenesis." Almost like saying we have a theory for the origin of life and all is right with the theory of evolution.
 
Almost like saying we have a theory for the origin of life and all is right with the theory of evolution.
Read what you posted. Oparin-Haldane is a hypothesis, not a theory. We do not yet have a theory of abiogenesis, all we have is a set of hypotheses that are still being tested to see which are the most likely.
 
You haven't made one.

You've declared both abiogenesis and evolution utterly implausible, and then told us to go read a linked document without any indication of what it's supposed to show.

Try harder next time.
Since your dishonest sources can't DEMONSTATE abiogenesis, that means your JUNK abiognesis conspiracy theory goes into the Dumpster.

Go ahead and insult and slander your way out of that.

Next. Science requires Observation

Your lying Komrades have none, Just speculation. Atheeist conspiracy theories.
 
Back
Top