Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin
Ok, lets be clear about what we mean by "Evolution".

If we mean Abiogenesis, then I think its clear the weight of evidence is against it being feasible (Abiogenesis means life first coming from the inorganic assuming the natural universe did not have outside help in producing life).

If we mean Common Origin of species in some first species where Abiogenesis already happened as a given, then maybe it is feasible, I am not sure.

Natural selection can't start helping overcome the odds until you have something that can take advantage of natural selection.

If I have a jar of sterilized peanut butter that is sealed against some life getting in it from the outside. I indeed have lots of amino acid and very organic stuff in there. Certainly if abiogenesis were feasible without amino acid and these complex structures given to us for free, then one would expect that life would spring up very quickly from the sterilized peanut butter jar. But that is not what we find. Abiogenesis is only considered feasible by those that need it to be feasible to support their world view. The Emprical evidence is very much against it.

58 posted on 06/15/2017 1:48:32 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AndyTheBear

“we mean Abiogenesis, then I think its clear the weight of evidence is against it being feasible (Abiogenesis means life first coming from the inorganic assuming the natural universe did not have outside help in producing life).”

Abiogenesis is evolution, it’s just the earliest form of it.

Really abiogenesis is not a real concept or theory scientifically. Means nothing other than a time before natural selection acts on living organisms and is impossible to define.

Abiogenesis is meaningless at best and is just another type of creationism if taken literally.


102 posted on 06/15/2017 2:53:45 PM PDT by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: AndyTheBear; USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Both of you have mentioned abiogenesis and differentiated it from evolution.

Andy defines it thusly, “Abiogenesis means life first coming from the inorganic assuming the natural universe did not have outside help in producing life.”

Do you agree with this, USFRIEND?

Next, you made a big mistake saying inorganic, that makes no sense. Nonetheless, we can skip that.

The question why do you separate this life coming about from evolution?


107 posted on 06/15/2017 3:03:52 PM PDT by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: AndyTheBear
If we mean Abiogenesis...

Let's talk about this some.


1. Let's assume that some yet undiscovered chemical process DID manage to create Life.
2. Just how MANY times did this occur before the created Life decided, "This dyin' is getting mighty old. I'm gonna try for REPRODUCTION next time around."

152 posted on 06/15/2017 7:10:27 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson