Why male and female?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your ramblings give me the impression that you have no idea of the complexity of life and are still almost as backward as Darwin was in respect to his understanding of the living cell. It would do you good to learn something about what you are trying to debate. The following is a three part video to start you off:

Irreducible complexity of the Cell shat ...[text shortened]... watch?v=6u84vv0pdm8

Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ujCYiyqe98

The Instructor

I am always amused when someone as utterly clueless and ignorant as yourself tells others that they don't understand something.

Take your own advice and learn about evolution before talking about it.

So called 'irreducible complexity' is not any kind of a problem for evolution.
Partly because nobody has yet demonstrated that there is any biological system that couldn't have evolved, but also because apparent 'irreducible complexity' would be expected to occur in evolved systems.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your ramblings give me the impression that you have no idea of the complexity of life and are still almost as backward as Darwin was in respect to his understanding of the living cell. It would do you good to learn something about what you are trying to debate. The following is a three part video to start you off:

Irreducible complexity of the Cell shat ...[text shortened]... watch?v=6u84vv0pdm8

Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ujCYiyqe98

The Instructor

....bla bla bla... the complexity of life .... bla bla bla ...

I did not say nor imply anything about what I believe about “ the complexity of life”.
This is typical of you; when I show you that you are wrong, you just simply change the subject completely!

I am fully aware that modern lifeforms are extremely complex.
I am also aware that such extreme complexity would be exactly what would be expected from evolution for there is no barrier that puts definable limits to the complexity evolution can create.
This, however, obviously has absolutely nothing to do with what I was just saying.

Originally posted by humy

....bla bla bla... the complexity of life .... bla bla bla ...

I did not say nor imply anything about what I believe about “ the complexity of life”.
This is typical of you; when I show you that you are wrong, you just simply change the subject completely!

I am fully aware that modern lifeforms are extremely complex.
I am also aware th ...[text shortened]... can create.
This, however, obviously has absolutely nothing to do with what I was just saying.

Yes there are limits. Look at this:

YouTube&feature=endscreen&NR=1

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes there are limits. Look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_XN8s-zXx4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

The Instructor

No, I will not. I will not waste my time watching yet another unintelligent propaganda video stuffed full of yet more crap.
Just tell me yourself why there are definable limits to how complex evolution can make something....
-Or admit you can't because you don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by humy

I just as clearly showed they weren't expecting life to arise from their experiment, unless you believe finding a bulding block is the same as life arising within their experiment.

You had just said:

“...You have to remember [b]this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces, ...”
So I then as cyanide would not have been toxic to protocells but is toxic to modern life.[/b]

It takes a long string of amino acids just to form one protein. Assuming you have many of the aminos needed to work with, you still need enough of them and placed in the right sequence to form one of the proteins needed. So like it or not, even a handfull of amino acids doesn't come close to showing the possibility of a first viable cell.

I think you are understating the complexity involved in making even a simple RNA base. And you have to assume a simple photo cell could reproduce itself. Otherwise it doesn't matter if it could have formed by itself, because its existence would be continually dependent on random chemical reactions. If your argument completely falls apart, you can always fall back on Well, we are here aren't we? Doesn't that prove it must have happened?... that's always good for a laugh or two.

None of this matters though, because as it has already been explained to me evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. And if increasing complexity fails the test then that too will have nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionists will still be the pokemon masters of science whether science can substantiate it or not. So relax, evolution isn't going anywhere... it will remain where it is.

Originally posted by humy
No, I will not. I will not waste my time watching yet another unintelligent propaganda video stuffed full of yet more crap.
Just tell me yourself why there are definable limits to how complex evolution can make something....
-Or admit you can't because you don't know what you are talking about.

Okay, you can remain ignorant then. It is better to hear it coming directly from the scientist's mouth rather than hearsay coming from me. That is because you are sure to dismiss what I say, if you will not listen to a real scientist, who is a expert in his field.

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
It takes a long string of amino acids just to form one protein. Assuming you have many of the aminos needed to work with, you still need enough of them and placed in the right sequence to form one of the proteins needed. So like it or not, even a handfull of amino acids doesn't come close to showing the possibility of a first viable cell.

I thin antiate it or not. So relax, evolution isn't going anywhere... it will remain where it is.

And if increasing complexity fails the test then that too will have nothing to do with evolution.

fails what “test”? We have proof of the complexity created by evolution in all modern living things and you have yet to define to us any kind of natural barrier to stop that complexity forming from evolution.

It takes a long string of amino acids just to form one protein

The first protocell probably neither had nor needed any protein. Then, later, evolution evolved protein -the operative word here being 'later'.

I think you are understating the complexity involved in making even a simple RNA base.

No, I am not. RNA bases have been produced in the lab. Also, many scientists, including myself, think the first protocell probably didn't have exactly the same identical RNA bases that exist today but rather had simpler RNA-like bases of the kind that much more readily spontaneously form. Then, later, evolution evolved modern RNA bases (and RNA) and then, later still, DNA bases (and DNA).

And you have to assume a simple photo cell could reproduce itself.

LOL. I don't think so. I certainly don't think that a simple “photo” cell could reproduce itself! I have never heard of a solar cell reproducing itself.
Obviously, you meant “protocell”. And yes, I do assume it can reproduce itself because we have direct EVIDENCE of this!
(I have an excellent video of that at home but so far cannot find the same video on the net but I am sure somebody here can find it if really pressed) Photocell-like structures that simulate those that must have spontaneously been produced in the early-earth, but with no RNA-like molecules, have been shown to spontaneously grow and divide in the lab! If they can grow and reproduce without RNA-like molecules, they, logically, SURELY can grow and reproduce WITH RNA-like molecules!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, you can remain ignorant then. It is better to hear it coming directly from the scientist's mouth rather than hearsay coming from me. That is because you are sure to dismiss what I say, if you will not listen to a real scientist, who is a expert in his field.

The Instructor

By that logic, you should listen to me.

Originally posted by humy

All this experiment was looking for was some basic building block (or blocks) of life, which does not by itself prove the possibility of the existence of a simple cell.

But is does prove that the building blocks were there for the formation of the first photocell.

ha ha, you're right. I did say photo cell. I wonder how that happened... ha ha.

Originally posted by lemon lime
ha ha, you're right. I did say photo cell. I wonder how that happened... ha ha.

Yes, we have both been making a few strange spelling mistakes.
Several times now I typed "is" when I should have typed "it" -don't know why.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If your argument completely falls apart, you can always fall back on Well, we are here aren't we? Doesn't that prove it must have happened?... that's always good for a laugh or two.

Its a perfectly good argument. Why are you laughing. What exactly do you see as a failure of that argument?

None of this matters though, because as it has already been explained to me evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis.
Correct. So why exactly are you attacking evolution again? Do you have religious reasons for doing so? Why would you want a failure in abiogenesis to affect the the Theory of Evolution unless you have religious reasons?

Evolutionists will still be the pokemon masters of science whether science can substantiate it or not. So relax, evolution isn't going anywhere... it will remain where it is.
What exactly are 'evolutionists'? Do you realize that evolution is just one of the biggest and best established theories in all of science? Are there Gravitationists, Round Earthists, Newtonists, Big Bangists and Relativists as well, or do you only make a theory into a religion if it contradicts your own religion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its a perfectly good argument. Why are you laughing. What exactly do you see as a failure of that argument?

[b]None of this matters though, because as it has already been explained to me evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis.
Correct. So why exactly are you attacking evolution again? Do you have religious reasons for doing so? Why would you wa ...[text shortened]... ts as well, or do you only make a theory into a religion if it contradicts your own religion?[/b]

I'm laughing at an implied immaculate conception of life when evolutionists say abiogenesis has nothing to do with the study of evolution.

Originally posted by humy
Yes, we have both been making a few strange spelling mistakes.
Several times now I typed "is" when I should have typed "it" -don't know why.

It's because we can't see spelling errors when we hear people talking.

BTW that was a joke, but nevertheless it's true.

Also, we can't hear mispronounced words in print, but it doesn't mean people who write those words don't mispronounce them.

When I talk I immediately hear my own words, so verbal communication is more or less self correcting. But when I'm typing, I always need to go back and look at what I said.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm laughing at an implied immaculate conception of life when evolutionists say abiogenesis has nothing to do with the study of evolution.

Odd, because that is clearly not what you implied when you said you were laughing the first time. You implication was you saw something wrong with the logic that us being here implies abiogenesis. Now you are saying that evolution must imply abiogenesis or immaculate conception and you find the latter a laughable possibility (despite clearly believing in it yourself.)

I think your laughter is actually your embarrassment at the ridiculousness of your position.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I think your laughter is actually your embarrassment at the ridiculousness of your position.

LOL Yeah, and if wishes were horses...

Nevertheless, you have spoken like a true Pokemon Master. Full of bluster and self ego inflation, but my pokemon can beat yours any day of the month. He has already evolved twice within the last 20 minutes, so pick your best pokemon and we will do battle today in this contest on the field of Pokemon Combat, where the combat will convene today and everyday until there is only one left, and the one left standing will be my pokemon... unless, you do not have confidence in your pokemons ability to counter my pokemons lightning fast tornado attack?

So ha, take that!