Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection

"jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Thore Schmechtig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of
>  man
> > > has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]

Neither can the creation, so it comes down to the evidence, and
**all** of the evidence so far unearthed points directly to evolution.
 Period.  Aspects of evolution have been demonstrated and observed in
the lab and in the wild.  You have been repeatedly, endlessly,
tirelessly told this.  Do you have some sort of learning disability
that you are unable to grasp simple facts such as these?

Once again if you have references to peer-reviewed papers published in
professional science journals that either refute the Theory of
Evolution, or that offer an alternative theory that better explains
the evidence, please quote those references to us.  If you do not,
then please shut your mindlessly blabbering mouth, because you haven't
had anything new or worthwhile to say since last century.

> > Liar.
> > While many things in the evolutionary process, especially the original
> > abiogenesis, of course cannot be observed because they happened in our
> > distant past, abiogenesis has been successfully simulated in the lab
> > for several times.
> 
> Really????????????????????????????????????
> 
> please point me to the results via website, journalistic papers, documents.

First of all, as you have been repeatedly told, abiogenesis has
nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.  Evolution is a fact
regardless as to whether it all began by a magic spell from some big
bearded giant in the sky, or whether the entire universe came about
through natural causes.

Secondly, since 1953, many aspects of abiogenesis have been
demonstrated in the lab as you have been repeatedly told.  Plausible
pathways from what is known and has been demonstrated, through to the
actual development of life have been posited, as Nobel laureate
Christian de Duve explains in his book "Vital Dust".  Again, you have
been told this repeatedly.

Here is one reference (I will give you more whenever you get around to
giving even a *single* meaningful reference to your repeated lies
about humans and bananas sharing 75% or their DNA.  No, it was 60%
wasn't it?  No, no, no, it was 50%...):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm

> > Also, evolutionary processes - especially speciation
> > - have been observed "in the wild". These observations can be repeated.
> 
> speciation  throwm as evidence once again.. and once again, which of the 5
> diferent contradictory defintion you are reffering to...

You have been repeatedly pointed to the talk.origins observed
speciation FAQ.  This is a summary of knowledge that was written by a
scientist, informally peer reviewed by t.o. regulars, and which
contains over 70 references, many of which are to peer-reviewed papers
published in professional science journals.  Again, you have been
repeatedly informed of this.

> > Also, evolution can be falsified. Of course one needs more for this
> > than your usual pseudo-proofs. Try that pesky thing you are forbidden
> > to even think about, called "FACT".
> 
> evidence please.....

Once again you have had this question answered repeatedly.  Finding a
fossil elephant in Precambrian rocks would instantly falsify the
Theory of Evolution.  Period.

> you are asking the wrong person. I am not a creationist.. I guess you never
> read any of my previous posts eh?

Apparently neither do you, and neither do you read what I have
repeatedly said, since I have pointed out specifically a post which
*you* originated which proves you are a creationist
(http://tinyurl.com/v8zc).

This thread which *you* began on september 21st this year was rather
ingrammatically titled: "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis" 
and in which you specifically state:
"On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then
the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into
another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different
type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its kind."
(Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being
by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or
organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly
complex, as living things are today."

You also started a thread ("TOBS-Genesis: Creative day II") on
September 2nd this year (http://tinyurl.com/v8zn) in which you
directly quote the Bible creation story.  If you believe God created
the universe, then you are a creationist, period.

Now this denial of yours proves you are a liar.

Now I have answered *all* of your questions, how about getting around
to answering this list that I have been asking you since August and
which you have so far completely failed to answer in even one item. 
I'm still waiting for you to:

1. Admit that regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of
whether it was or was not in the line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represented an example of a potential intermediate stage.

2. Admit that the okapi is pretty much what a transitional giraffe
would have looked like.

3. Explain what would prevent something akin to a mouse, from changing
300 genes over 60 million years to become either human or a modern
mouse.

4. Acknowledge that no evolutionist has ever claimed that modern birds
evolved from modern reptiles and that argument from incredulity
addressing this non-issue, no matter how ancient it is, does not
constitute a "colossal hole" in the Theory of Evolution.

5. Acknowledge that creationist letters published as a courtesy (or
maybe as a source of amusement) in _New Scientist_ are *not* the
equivalent of peer-reviewed science papers, no matter how ancient and
misguided they are.

6. Post a **LIST** of these "colossal holes" in the Theory of
Evolution that you've has been lying about since August.

7. Admit that the informally peer-reviewed talk.origins archive is a
valid reference, especially when the articles to which I have
repeatedly refered you are themselves replete with references, many of
which are to peer-reviewed
material.

8. Realize what a pathetic hypocrite you are to demand peer-reviewed
material of others when you have never offered a single peer-reviewed
reference yourself - in fact, all you essentially do offer is
unreferenced, plagiarized, and all-too-frequently outdated argument
from incredulity.

9. Admit that the article you offered as a reference for your claim
that 75% of human DNA is the same as that of the banana actually
stated that *up to* 30% *may be* similar.

10. Offer even one useful reference for your subsequent and previous
claims that we are:
A. 90% identical to a banana in our DNA,
B. 60% identical to a banana in our DNA,
C. 50% identical to a banana in our DNA.

It's very important that you deal with these issues, because right now
it's looking very much like you are 100% identical to a coward and a
hypocrite.  Any response to this which does not intelligently and
competently address each of these issues will be an open admission by
you that you are a liar, a hypocrite and a coward.

Budikka