aus dem Usenet:
[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Budikka666 <budikka1[bat]netscape.net>
Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism,alt.biology,sci.skeptic,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
Subject: Another Stupid Creationist Gets Their Dumb Ass Kicked
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 03:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <694d279a-5a33-40e6-8301-dbf7d878bd6b@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 4, 11:31=A0pm, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did Budikka postulated anything about abiogenesis?
>
> On Jan 4, 5:09=A0pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17 2009, 4:30=A0pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Unmet challenge #1
> > > The challenge I offered you in this thread:http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
> > > on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
>
> > Golly look who showed up in a Jabriol Thread... it is time for fun.
>
> > > Unmet challenge #2
> > > Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. =A0Not Bi=
ble
> > > quotes. =A0Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
> > > Not divine revelation. =A0Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertion=
s.
> > > Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. =A0Not counter challenges when you have=
n't
> > > even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation=
.
>
> > Can you provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis?
>
> > the other question you ask are as always.. irrelevant.
When you're done with English 101, do please get back to me.
And for the record, I don't "postulated" I supply evidence provide by
the hard work of real scientists (as opposed to the fake scientists
put forward by the creationist, who don't actually *do* any science).
We know that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced amino acids, the
building blocks of life, back in 1953:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.htmlWe know that other experiments have produced similar results using a
variety of simulated early Earth environments:
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experimentWe know that organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the
chemistry of life are common in space:
http://tinyurl.com/9bfahhttp://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/08/07/1830.aspxWe know that 92 of them have come to Earth on a single meteorite:
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/murchy.htm"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteoriteWe know that they could survive the impact:
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stmWe also know that "locally grown" chemistry have started life:
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stmWe know that chemicals could congregate in sufficient undisturbed
volume to actually make a start on life:
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=3Da&id=3D4670We know where these molecules could collect together:
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stmWe know that they can form "boundary structures" similar to cell
walls:
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.htmlWe know this can work in practice:
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stmWe know that even simple molecules can mimic life:
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stmWe know that the first cells wouldn't have been like modern cells, but
how complex would the first cell need to be if it had been a modern
cell?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.htmlWhat's the smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4uJ. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/These are discoveries which bring us step-by-step closer to
understanding what happened and what has taken place since:
An introduction to evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htmAbiogenesis:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.htmlOrigin of life on Earth:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htmCells hint at life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stmCradle of life?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stmLab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stmMechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stmEarly animal evolution:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm29+ evidences for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/Only 600 genes separate mice from men:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stmWhale evolution:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.htmlHow could an eye evolve?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.htmlAre mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.htmlEarly human evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htmSame errors in human and chimp DNA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/Humans and chimps not so different:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htmThe evidence for human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/Transitional snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stmFossil bridges land and sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stmFeathery fossil shed light on origins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stmArchaeopteryx:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.htmlwings for speed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stmBones make feathers fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stmChanging one gene launches new fly species:
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.phpTransitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlTransition to mammals:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htmThe fossil record:
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.htmlTransition to land:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/dyk.htmlorigin of feathers:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Dec/msg00031.htmlSickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htmDifferent species with the same junk DNA:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.htmlEvidences for Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.htmljury-rigged "design":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.htmlrobots programmed using evolution exhibit altruism:
http://www.ecal2007.org/prog/abs/kop.htmThe so-called "Chain of Life" can be seen, alive today, in the major
vertebrate groups: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. These
groups are not as distinct as creationists love to lie that they are.
Take fish, to begin with. There are almost 28,000 species of them
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), about a third of which are
freshwater varieties. Creationists love to claim that 28,000 pairs of
fish didn't need to be on the ark because they can swim on a flooded
planet, but they carefully ignore the fact that freshwater fish do not
do well in saltwater and vice-versa.
Nor do deepwater fish do well in the shallows and vice-versa. Nor do
fish specifically adapted to the polar regions do well in the tropics
and vice-versa. Nor does any species of aquatic life thrive in mud
broth, which is what the ocean
would be in a global flood.
Somewhere along the way, no matter what your perspective, fish *had*
to evolve to explain these 28,000 or so species. And we can see
examples of what they were doing in the fossil record, but just as
importantly, we can see examples of what they are doing to evolve and
survive today amongst the living populations.
Take the killifish for example:
http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=3Dfullnews&id=3D12015This is a fish - but a fish that can live in insect burrows in
mangrove trees for extended periods when the local mangrove pools dry
up.
Frogfish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZ1ATGAEnLzIThis is a fish that can walk as easily along the bottom as it can
swim. It effectively has legs, yet is still a fish.
Mudskipper:
http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htmThis lives in the littoral region - where the sea meets the shore and
is pretty much as at home out of the water as it is in it. Yet it's a
fish.
Everyone has heard of Lungfish:
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/8733.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LungfishBut has everyone heard of the walking catfish, and catfish that hunt
out of the water?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3D5338989Yes, they're still fish, but they're actually taking the first step or
two along the path to becoming amphibians, even without a huge
environmental incentive. What would fish such as these become given
sufficient time and natural selection?
The next step up from these fish is a true amphibian, and even amongst
those, there is some oddity. Consider the Axolotl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AxolotlIt's an amphibian which effectively spends its entire life as a fish,
never leaving the water, but able to survive low water levels and
poorly oxygenated water. In rare circumstances it will mature into
what it actually is - a mole salamander. Axolotls are more advanced
than humans - in at least one regard. They can regenerate lost limbs,
which we cannot do naturally, not even in our wildest dreams, although
science doubtlessly will one day allow us to do this.
In the amphibian world, there's also an impressive variety. People
tend to think that amphibians are tied to water because that's where
they have to lay their eggs, but this isn't always true as we see at:
http://www.livingunderworld.orghttp://tinyurl.com/3duox5"Salamandra atra, usually only produce one or two offspring out of a
clutch of 20-30, which are delivered as fully morphed, miniature
adults. The remaining, unfertilized eggs provide nourishment to the
developing larvae when their yolk sacs have been exhausted. The larvae
of Salamandra atra obtain further nourishment by scraping the mothers
reproductive tract with specialized teeth, which provides them with
enough nourishment to last through the 2-4 year gestation period.
Similar behavior is also observed in some populations of Salamandra
salamandra, but with a slight twist; after all the unfertilized eggs
have been consumed, some developing larvae may cannibalize other
developing larvae within the mothers oviduct. All larval development
occurs within the mother, making these species true terrestrials."
In other words, this amphibian is already heading away from its
dependence upon water.
But what about those cannibalistic babies? Did a loving intelligent
designer create this mean and barbaric system, or did it actually
evolve? These are not the only cannibals. Consider the caecilians
described at
www.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist:
http://tinyurl.com/2799q6This is the best a loving god can do?
Moving on to reptiles, what, exactly, is the tuatara?
http://tinyurl.com/233k6p(at
http://www.panda.org)
It's not an amphibian, but neither is it like any other reptile. You
might call it a living fossil. It's so strange that it has a whole
order all to itself, the rhynchocephalia.
Like fish and amphibians, reptiles are not at all uniform. Some lay
eggs, others, such as the venomous cottonmouth:
http://tinyurl.com/26697t(at
www.nationalzoo.si.edu)
develop young inside their bodies (but the young can also pop out of
eggs immediately after the eggs are laid). The cottonmouth is semi-
aquatic but is neither a fish nor an amphibian.
Snakes are a good example of the fact that there isn't one snake
"kind". Snakes can live pretty much anywhere provided the temperature
isn't too chill. There are jungle snakes, plains snakes, prairie
snakes, forest snakes, desert snakes and even sea-snakes:
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/aquaticsnakes/true_sea.htmlAny pair of snakes taken aboard the ark would have had to evolve -
evolve significantly and dramatically. There is no getting away from
evolution, even if you're a firm believer in a 6,000 year old Earth
and a global flood just 4,500 or so years ago.
Living representatives of a potential transitional form between
reptiles and mammals are the monotremes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonotremeThey're mammals, but are commonly viewed as primitive even though
they're as evolved as any other living organism, including humans.
They lay eggs, like fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, but unlike
other mammals; however, the eggs are retained in the body for a while
and "fed" by the mother. The platypus feeds its young with milk, like
other mammals, but even this is different: there is no teat. The milk
simply exudes onto the mother's skin where it can be licked up by the
young.
This was designed? Why? Why just three living monotremes? And where
do the marsupials fit into the grand design? Why are there so few of
these "odd" mammals and why are they so limited in range today?
The transitions, visible in organisms alive today as well as in the
fossil record, go well beyond this, through birds, mammals and
reptiles. In short, we don't need design to explain either the origin
or the evolution of life:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlBudikka
---------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
.
