Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 91. (Read 108046 times)

It is always the same with creationists. "Show me the transitional fossils!" Here they are. "Aha, but where are the transitional fossils between the transitional fossils you just showed me? Now there are two gaps instead of just one!"

First you said, "he created some aminoacids but not even half of them to make a simplest of all organism". I proved that wrong.

Then you said, "Why not repeat the experiments". I proved that they did.

Then, for reasons entirely unclear to anyone except yourself, it had to be an experiment from 2008. I proved that one as well.

Now it's a problem with the type of amino acids created? Utterly hilarious.

Given barn door evidence that the building blocks of life formed in the early earth environment, you react by imposing arbitrary new constraints on the evidence that you will accept. Here's the issue though: No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind.

The very fact that you use the word "evolutionist" as an insult is a perfect metaphor for this entire argument. An evolutionist is simply someone who understands science and accepts facts. Something you clearly are not.

Have I missed something or they had not mentioned how many variety of amino acids they produce? I might have not found it - but show me... quote it ctr c and ctr v and give link.

Oh look what I have found: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Reassessment-of-Prebiotic-Organic-Synthesis-in-N-Cleaves-Chalmers/089877438f38da992b56ea97e04da18365adb134

Look at their graph. Graph Figure 2. You see? Only 5 amino acids plus others meaning some other 3. So thats max 8 but probably the last 3 are not used for life. The table 2 enumerates the amino acids to a total 8 of them.

Same results? Indeed... Not even close to 20 amino acids.


Ok I will... Thank you.


I never claimed it had. Do I?


The topic is evolution is a hoax - you have stand in the apologetic terms. So I ask for evidence on the defence that it is not a hoax. How can you say thats offtopic??


You act like a typical evolutionist. If he is nervous he is making ad hominem attacks. You have not presented the evidence of your claims of initial experiment producing 25 amino acids and neither presenting the claims that 2008 research is valid because the experiment havnt been redone, and you failed to present verbating word to word statement from your papers that assures the reader that the experiment they have made done what you say they did - making 24 amino acids.

Its just that........


Yes I am content that the research you have pointed me to leads to the conclusions of making only 8 amino acids at best.

Cleaves HJ, Chalmers JH, Lazcano A, Miller SL, Bada JL. A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary Atmospheres. Orig Life Evol Biosph 38, 2008.

A paper from 2008 where they started from scratch. Same results.



If you can't access that paper, I would refer you to this handy list of approximately 50 more examples of new species being created in a lab.



I would also repeat this:





You are putting forward baseless opinions. I have asked you, now 5 times, for a single shred of evidence to support your opinions, and you have provided nothing.

I assumed you had a basic knowledge of how science works and how debating works, that you are expected to back up your claims and not just make wild accusations. I realise now I was wrong. My mistake. I am getting bored of leading you by the hand through an elementary education in both the scientific process and evolution. You seem content being wilfully ignorant, and seem eager to stay that way.

Scientists don't debate evolution because there isn't really anything to debate, it's a facts from several different sciences leading to an obvious conclusion

LEARN HOW TO READ! It is written there - they use the vials that the Miller produced.... Its embarassing.


Not again... You had gave me more than 10 papers. I wanted you to pick one. Have you read it yourself? It is a rare material that is not on the internet. You cant assume you won because you had gave me something to read, that I have no access to.


It is an evolution is a hoax topic. You see? We are talking about evolution and not what I think.

Once again:




Also, once again:




You keep shouing for evidence, I keep providing it, and you keep ignoring it. I would like to, for the fourth time, invite you to provide any evidence whatsoever that your back up your claims.

Evolutionists often express irritation when Piltdown Man and other fakes are raised by their opponents.  A common attempt to put a ‘positive spin’ on the whole affair is to portray it as a ‘plus’ for science, demonstrating its allegedly ‘self-correcting nature’.  After all, we are told, it was evolutionary scientists themselves who discovered the fraud. 

Ok I believe you... 50 years later they made 25 amino acids. I have only your words.... I believe your words... Because you are so awesome..... Please. Give me the proof.... FFS. I have read your papers from 2006 and 2007, none of them says about the variety of amino acids produced, so please... If you have more info than from the internet - show me as I can't confirm that what you say.


"



The experiment have been re-done - Your words when I asked why would they not redo the experiments to confirm the found vial results are viable.

Or maybe you believe those evolutionists like they would be the God incarnated themselves? I guess you do believe them unconditionally.....

Its not arbitrary. It is just logic. If they had found out something out of the vial - they were surprised, so they should confirm if its legit. Isn't it?

So... Ok obviously you can't and won't find experiment after 2008 for obvious reasons. In that case if you could show me the results of the most recent experiment from 2006? Because it is not saying the results - of how many amino acids were produced. I know they didnt need to do that because the experiment was not measuring that, but you have said that they redo the experiment - so if they did, they should be focused on the same effects.


? What are you talking about? You have not proven by no means that 2008 finding is legit, or that 2006 claims what you claim it claims neither other experiments.

And you have failed to show me the paper in which it is proven to isolate the specie. So just do of one of those things.

For the third time - the experiment in 1952 found 5 amino acids, the same experiment 50 years later found 25 amino acids because we have better technology than is better at detecting amino acids. I appreciate that may sound like "magic" to you, but I assure you it is not.




Please quote where I said the experiment was re-done after 2008. I said no such thing. You decided that 2008 as an arbitrary cut off, for reasons know only to yourself.



You have completely failed to respond to the mountains of evidence presented, you have completely failed to present a single shred of evidence of your own, and you are now arguing against things I did not even say. Time to admit you have lost.

Ok thank you. He isolated the specie... I believe you. Let me just inform myself about the matter and contact you again ok?  Just tell me in what paper he had proven that? About the Miller experiments your materials clearly says they have not redo the experiments after 2008. Simple as that. Give me the material about the experiment that have been redone as you claim it was after 2008 or its non-existant.

We are talking about Evolution being a hoax and not Przemax being a hoax mmmk?

Your material from 2006:



yields of various? 5? 6? 7? How many? In 2006 There was a 5 amino acids found and scientific breakthrough had made it 25 in the year of 2010... Yeah... Magic...


Why? I want to know the "so obvious" truth. Give me the materials of redone experiments after the 2008 or the results of pre 2008 experiments, and a paper in which the isolation of specie is proven. Just as simple as that.

Let's go back to my very first comment in this thread (emphasis added):


We are now going in circles. Your inability to read, process or respond to the mountains of evidence I have presented to you, coupled with the fact that you have offered exactly zero evidence of your own, suggests there is no point in continuing this conversation with you. You seem quite happy to be wilfully ignorant.

2006 and 2007...... ummmm.... Well.... They found the vial in 2008... Shouldnt they repeat the experiment after 2008? None of your papers are after the 2008. You know what is the definition of redoing the experiment don;t you? There are no conclusions just a veeeeeeeeeery brief mention "may have played a significant role in the prebiotic origin of molecular diversity and evolution" That could mean anything. On the internet I could only find the abstract. Can you give me some links to whole of the reaserch and what its about? It is not a redo of Miller experiment.... So do not lie.


I checked that because its after the 2008. And I have found that:


Read that.... Seriously. The describtion of the experiment means how to re-examine the Miller's vials. It is not a redo of the experiment...


As I am not aware what he found out I have to assume he found that adaptation works. I agree. It works. Anything more? What exactly has he proven. If you had read it - tell me. What have he discovered? Have he made a new specie - and by specie I mean the speciment that is seperated in his ability to breed with the previous speciments.


L O L...... You are funny. You had gave me some materials with basicly only abstract that could be about anything but not Miller experiments that were before 2008 when I asked you to prove they redone the experiment after 2008....

Well I hope you never become a lawyer or a judge because everyone would be innocent unless there is video evidence, right?

Oh. My. God. It's like talking to a brick wall. Please at least TRY to educate yourself before posting such utter nonsense.

Firstly, you were the one that linked that article. I'm not basing my arguments on that article, and to claim that I am is a complete strawman.



Here is the paper where they re-analysed his vials with modern equipment:

Parker ET, et al. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(14), 2011.



Here is just a tiny selection of papers redoing and reproving the Miller-Urey experiment in a variety of ways:

Plankensteiner K, Reiner H, Rode BM. Amino acids on the rampant primordial Earth: Electric discharges and the hot salty ocean. Mol Divers, 2006.

Ruiz-Bermejo M, Menor-Salván C, Osuna-Esteban S, Veintemillas-Verdaguer S. Prebiotic microreactors: A synthesis of purines and dihydroxy compounds in aqueous aerosol. Origins Life Evol Biosph, 2007.

Navarro-González R, Molina MJ, Molina LT. Nitrogen fixation by volcanic lightning in the early Earth. Geophys Res Lett, 1998.

Parker ET, et al. Prebiotic synthesis of methionine and other sulfur-containing organic compounds on the primitive Earth. Origins Life Evol Biosph, 2010.

Heyns HK, Walter W, Meyer E. Model experiments on the formation of organic compounds in the atmosphere of simple gases by electrical discharges. Die Naturwissenschaften, 1957.

Lu H-K, et al. Formation of sulfur-containing amino acids by electric discharge in a reductive atmosphere. Chem Abstracts, 1960.

Sagan C, Khare BN. Long-wavelength ultraviolet photoproduction of amino acids on the primitive Earth. Science, 1971.

Khare BN, Sagan C. Synthesis of cystine in simulated primitive conditions. Nature, 1971.

Van Trump JE, Miller SL. Prebiotic synthesis of methionine. Science, 1972.




He is the earliest example of which I am aware. There are hundreds of others I could tell you about.



Since I have provided you with literally screeds of evidence, I want you to now provide evidence to back up your claims. All you have done is make nonsense, baseless, factless and outlandish claims, and if you do the same again, this argument is decidedly over. Evidence or nothing.

What evidence? Of crime scene? Yeah Im convinced.

You will never convince these religious extremists of anything, they just wont accept the evidence, ever.

The article does not say they re-do the experiment.

You understand how shady that whole issue looks like? You wait until the guy dies, then you find his stuff (ofcourse everyone play fair like evolutionists always did) and you say - hey - his stuff proves our point..........

And nowhere in the article about it says that the experiments was redone... Only you say. Based on your word that experiment was redone....

It all looks criminal to me - you know?


You know? You had some purpose to give this scientist and not the other. Why this one if he is not known? It makes no sense. Or maybe you wanted it to not make sense. That's why I asked - do you know what are we talking about? Or can't you not only read but think as well.

The experiment has been re-done hundreds of times. They also re-analysed the original vials with modern equipment. The results were the same. More amino acids than are required for life as we know it.


Says the guy who can't grasp why a Russian scientist, working with a Russian team, in a Russian lab, in Russia, publishing in Russian journals, doesn't write in English.

Where's the facepalm emoji?

You can not be serious about that.................................. They didn't knew how to find the trace of amino acids?

So just redo the experiments FFS.............


You lack the ability to think don't you?

No they didn't. They simply re-analysed the same vials with modern technology and equipment.



That's the issue. He's not a "hotshot". He is one of many, many scientists that have demonstrated evolution in the lab. It is not a big deal whatsoever in the scientific community, because evolution has been proven to be a fact by mountains and mountains of evidence. His work is a drop in the ocean in terms of the evidence for evolution.