Why is evolution impossible if abiogenesis hasn't been proven yet ? But not falsified either ?

*waiting patiently for Larry to claim all the evidence points to creation*

@ Larry: "Neither the ball nor the cannon meets the 7 criteria used to define life... So your analogy fails."

Reification - the asker is not claiming the ball or the cannon is alive in that analogy. You claiming it doesn't work due to semantics does not make the analogy any less relevant.

"The problem is you have not provided any real evidence that gets you from the observation life exists to the conclusion it is the product of abiogenesis other than the assumption of materialism (in other words you cannot seem to separate your world view from the science). "

Ad Hominem - the askers perspective, and the evidence to support his perspective, are unknown to you. This is a personal attack in an attempt to inhibit the discussion.

"First, I don't deny evolution! The ball is driven or propelled by the cannon meaning the cannon is an essential part of the process- Abiogenesis is not part of the process of evolution so again your analogy fails. "

You just attacked his analogy, now you use it? Make up your mind, bud.

"Again, what is the actual EVIDENCE that is behind the Hypothesis. You have ignored step 2 and asserted a 'Hypothesis' but you have not provided any evidence upon which that hypothesis rests. "

Organic Chem. Took it my freshman year in college. All the evidence you need is right there. You want to crack that open and have a read, bud? xD

"So your argument is evolution therefore abiogenesis?

Ice Cream therefore cow.. Cows are the result if Ice cream. "

No - his argument was why are people claiming "evolution is wrong because abiogenesis is wrong!" without verifying that abiogenesis is wrong.

Do you need help with reading comprehension?

Also, your pitiful analogy is an Inconsistent Comparison fallacy.

"I am a scientist and I am approaching your question (which appears to be a scientific question) as a scientist. "

No you are not - you approach it with your own biases, but then criticize anyone you perceive doing the same thing. You interpret evidence to fit with your perspective, disregard any evidence that may contradict "creation" and claim anyone who has a different perspective than you as "fallacious". You are the quintessential example of what it means to be closed-minded.

"Of course you are not arguing evolution, you are arguing abiogenesis and Common Descent neither of which falls into the accepted scientific definition of biological evolution"

Original question has nothing to do with common descent - Red Herring.

"Alex - Sans the Mercy - Larry is quite a "scientist" here ! "

Yeah, and I am the King of Denmark. xD

@ Larry: Wow, deleted every point I made - nicely done. Now you can claim ignorance to everything I pointed out.

"Now unless you can demonstrate one has something to do with the other without using nonsense analogies that pretty much ends the discussion!"

Criticizing the askers analogies - I would say that falls in the realm of an ad hominem. xD You just can't help yourself, can you buddy?

"To assert Abiogenesis has not been discredited you need to establish an objective criteria that distinguishes Abiogenesis from Spontaneous Generation."

Spontaneous generation was originally thought to explain how certain things came from inanimate objects - I believe one example was people claimed fleas arose from dust. You are correct that such a concept has been found obsolete - we are well aware that fleas do not come from dust.

Spontaneous generation discusses the ongoing emergence of life, while abiogenesis discusses the origin of life. Two different concepts. I would suggest reading up on the topics, however I am surprised a "scientist" such as yourself has a difficult time differentiating the two. xD

@ Danx: I wouldn't even bother with Larry anymore - he doesn't even understand that Spontaneous Generation =/= Abiogenesis. Any concept conveyed to him at this point will be disregarded and claimed to be "fallacious" just so he feels victorious.

Larry IS the pigeon playing chess - he is knocking all the pieces over and claiming victory. xD

You know that we dont use cannon balls dont you? They evolve for example if you can hear that bad MF "growl", of a A-10 gun he's shootin' at someone else!.... You wont never know what killed you unless it miss you in the first round, dont worry that guns can get around in less than 8 second and hit the same place....

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications. So if you dont believe or doubt is not important science is not a believe system... The theory of evolution provides humankind with more than just a scientific narrative of life’s origins and progression. It also yields invaluable technologies.

For instance, the concept of molecular clocks—based on the accumulation of mutations in DNA over the eons—underlies applications such as the DNA analyses used in criminal investigations.

DNA analysis of how pathogens evolve produces useful information for combating the outbreak and spread of disease. Accelerated evolution in laboratories has improved vaccines and other therapeutic proteins... so next time you are sick use some creationism advance medicine and.... die looking at the cannonball

One has nothing to do with the other... (Evolution - Abiogenesis)

Your assertion "But not falsified either ?" begs the question..

Abiogenesis = Spontaneous Generation which was discredited by numerous different experiments conducted between the 17th and 19th century... To assert Abiogenesis has not been discredited you need to establish an objective criteria that distinguishes Abiogenesis from Spontaneous Generation.

Now unless you can demonstrate one has something to do with the other without using nonsense analogies that pretty much ends the discussion!

Larry - I think you just gave up, deleted all your arguments, why ? You we're embarrased by those arguments ?

Not at all, as you pointed out - the 'arguments' did not address your claims.. you want to debate, start with a single intelligible claim and stick to it!

I asked for the evidence used to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis. You responded with a link arguing Common Descent. When you have the evidence requested - I will be happy to review it.. Until then - you are just blown smoke out your *** and claiming victory!

The main ideea is that complex chemistry can, according to abiogenesis, give rise to life ! So far we know that giving the proper conditions, aminoacids can form by themselves, that's a clue.

But a scientist like yourself shouldn't ask for evidence concerning such a topic you are interested in, The origins of life !

5 minutes ago

Yes the Miller - Urey experiments in the 1950's Later discoveries showed the environment used in the experiments never existed on the earth (specifically no reducing atmosphere). when the experiments were reconstructed simulating in conditions that probably did exist they failed completely.

At present you have about 9 different hypothetical assertions - none of which has even come close to producing anything that meets more than one of the 7 criteria for life. The burden is not on me to prove abiogenesis did not happen, it is on you to prove that it did.

But there is a more basic problem -- that is, even if scientists are able to produce life in a controlled laboratory setting the only thing they have proven is that life can be created as a product of intelligent design (the scientists being the intelligent designer).. To take it to the next step they have to prove the controlled conditions existed in nature some time in the past and that there were natural analogs for any apparatus or processes used in the lab to produce that result. This is perhaps part of the reason progress has been so slow - Scientists are trying to integrate the 'next step' into it to avoid this problem and no matter how cool their hypothesis is, the find that they are not able to do so.

"I know that experiment and know the arguments against it, but that doesn't refute abiogenesis either !"

Just out of curiosity - how do you respond to a theist advising you you have not refuted god either?

You may apply that response to the above!

Yes on amino acid - the simplest glycine was found on a comet -- only 22 more (sixteen much more complex) needed to support life.. Of course that ignores the problem of protein synthesis (putting the amino acids together to form proteins) Another issue is that all such amino acids need to be the left handed isomers (if this is random then you would expect left and right handed) The point is, this is not even remotely close to anything fitting the seven criteria science uses to define life.

Living things are composed of many thousands of "life molecules" all operating and controlled by may interdependent components that must all be working together. Arguably it is possible that lighting could start a fire and the wind blow it so it is hot enough to extract aluminum out of Bauxite ore producing a component for a automobile. But that is not even lose to demonstrating a automobile could be produced by natural process - and even the most modern and sophisticated automobile is primitive compared to the most simple living cell.

Who said anything about "God"? Red Herring - we were talking about abiogenesis. (did the pigeon just kick over the pieces and declare victory?)

Organic Chemistry proves that abiogenesis happened. The scientists are just working out understanding the mechanisms for HOW it happened.

Evolution is a fact of life and most Christians and Jews understand both concepts. Only fundees & fringe cults think ignorance is a virtue.

I don't think the cannonball analogy is as apt as you think it is.

In any case,

All living organisms consist of carbon, calcium, iron, etc. -- all btw also found in "dirt";"dust";"mud" etc. The Bible says that the "earth called forth life." = abiogenesis.

Atheists think it happened through happy chance, people of faith believe it happened as part of God's plan, but denying that abiogenesis and evolution is part of creation just makes the "literalists" willfully IGNORANT.

Scientists have already created "proto-cells" in the lab. The fine line between living things and non-living things isn't as clear as most people think:

life vs. non-life TED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4

This video also explains the chemical processes involved pretty well:

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

There is no cannonball.

There is no spoon.

Abiogenesis and evolution are just myths that Atheists made up.

It is impossible for one species to change into another species.

It is impossible for different species to mate and produce offspring that can reproduce themselves.

That is the truth.

If you are quick enough to see a cannonball coming you'd better be real quick on your feet or evolution just ceased in your family tree.

Sorry, your analogy is a bit off target.

Evolution and abiogenesis are not intrinsically linked.

No matter how we got here (Be it by chemistry, god, or aliens), we evolved into our current form, we are currently still evolving, and we can directly observe the effects of evolution on microorganisms.

I like the cannonball analogy.

This is the best example you could come up with?

Oh its that "figuring out" that is the problem

Creation is all around you, Somebody had to make it...it didn't make itself

You guys are retarded.