Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
If Americans came from Europe why are there still Europeans?
And yes, the author of this piece is too dumb to understand evolution.
This is how ALGORE got his start as the GOD of Environmental Science.
I thought evolutionists were always telling us that origin-of-life arguments have nothing to do with evolution?
What kind of animals did we come from? Apes and monkeys? Because if that’s the case, they do still exist. In fact, my understand of the fossils that have been found and were interpreted to be cro-magnin or neanderthal were apes and monkeys such as “Lucy” and the fake “Piltdown Man.” Is this correct?
I think you skipped that day in 9th grade biology class where they explained this to the class.
As someone pointed out above, this is where Darwin’s theory becomes a faith. Indeed, the high priests of the Temple of Darwin are quite open about it if you ask them the right question:
“What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?”
Richard Dawkins: “I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.”
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf
Why wouldn't they? There's nothing in the Theory of Evolution that requires an ancestral species to go extinct.
But, point in fact, though we share a common ancestor with the other great apes, that common ancestor is extinct.
ROFL!
Figure 1. The self-assembly of amphiphiles occurs when molecules with both hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions arrange themselves into a minimum-energy configuration, such as a spherical phospholipid bilayer vesicle. Deamer and coworkers also studied the abiotic formation of aliphatic lipid compounds (i.e., fatty acids, alcohols, and acylglycerols) as has been reported to occur at elevated temperatures and pressures under simulated hydrothermal conditions. Although abiotic synthetic chemistry can occur under these conditions, the prebiotic self-assembly of micelles to bilayer to vesicles (protocells) may have occurred elsewhere. Because they are abundant products of Fischer-Tropsch-type reactions and are also present in the organic components of carbonaceous meteorites, amphiphilic compounds such as fatty acids are important candidates for micelle/bilayer/vesicle formation.
Thus, it is of interest to determine whether more complex amphiphilic precursor compounds capable of assembling into stable membrane structures can be synthesized under hydrothermal conditions. Hydrothermal experiments were conducted to study condensation reactions of model lipid precursors in aqueous media to form acylglycerols (glyceryl alkanoates) at elevated temperature under confining pressure. Nine different alkanoic acids ranging from C7 to C16 (except C8) were used in these experiments. The condensation products were two isomers each of monoacylglycerols and diacylglycerols, as well as the corresponding triacylglycerol. The results indicated that (1) condensation (dehydration) reactions are possible under aqueous pyrolysis conditions, (2) abiotic synthesis and subsequent condensation reactions of aliphatic lipid compounds are possible under hydrothermal conditions, and (3) such molecules have robust properties of self-assembly into membranous structures that would be suitable boundary structures for primitive forms of cellular life.
Doesn't look complicated to me. /sarcasm
ping!
Evolution is just like global warming that way.
Evolution does NOT say any current species evolved from any other of the current species.
Current species, by natural selection, came from ancestors who were different.
Homo sapiens did not evolve from today’s apes & monkeys. Today’s primates evolved from ancestors who were different from any of today’s primates. Not only are we changed from our ancestors, so are all the other species that exist today also different from THEIR ancestors.
Possums did not evolve from kangaroos, nor did kangaroos evolve from possums. Both evolved from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.
Because evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands, even millions of years to take place. Which means that we can't actually observe it taking place. Which means our only evidence for it is forensic, and therefore open to subjective interpretation. Which means that you have to essentially take our particular interpretation on faith. So stop asking questions, you creationiost whackjob!
/s
Why would they? Our closest related species, chimps and gorrillas, evolved to fit a different environmental niche than we did. They're not our ancestors, just a branch of the family tree that went in a different direction.
Nonsense. It was found and frozen in Georgia a few weeks back. I read it on the web. Also, one also drove the bus (until he was wounded) in the movie Speed.
That’s a rhetorical question, right? I mean, it’s like asking if you are dumb enough to believe anal sex doesn’t transmit AIDS, or dumb enough to believe gold will reach $1650 this summer.
Already on it, though it’s a shame that I’ll probably be on the road when this thread really gets interesting :(
There is one thing I don't understand though. That is the other force at work in the universe beside the four that we know of, i.e. that is the unmeasured, supernatural, invisible force which defies the second law of thermodynamics and creates order out of disorder.
Can some one help me with that with explanations that don't include words like "might", "may', "could have", "probably", etc.,etc.,etc.
I thought abiogenesis was not part of the "evolution" theology. That's what I've been told by all the Evos on this forum. Now here is a guy that says that anyone who doesn't understand how life can form spontaneously is an idiot.
Does that mean that all the EVOS on this forum are idiots just like us creationists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.