What abiogenesis research has shown is that life cannot come from non-life.No. That science has not produced new life, or even found out how current life formed on Earth as of close-of-business last workday is simply irrelevant to whether all the life we do have is related by divergence from common descent.Even under ideal conditions, man cannot produce life from non-life.
That means (drumroll please) evolution could not have happened.
You not only abhor facts, but logic. Your little syllogism above is absurd, drumroll or no. This isn't creationism, it's cretinism.
Rounding out the information in my previous posts, here's another poster's presentation of the fish-to-elephant transitional series. The final paragraph is of interest here.
Also note that the changes between any two sequential transitionals are small enough that most creationists would write them off as only "microevolution" -- and yet those 50-or-so "microevolutionary" steps turn a fish into an elephant, which even the most stubborn creationist would have to concede is "macroevolution".So in a few posts we have the obvious logic that evolutionary change is inevitable ("microevolution") and supposedly accepted by everybody. Nobody ever seems to identify anything that would stop microevolution from continuing indefinitely, as an absurdly large preponderance of evidence indicates has indeed occurred. Considerable samples of such have been given and waved away already, enough to make it abundantly clear what is going on.
A perfect parallel would be accepting the "micro-" plate tectonics we can measure year to year but not accepting despite massive evidence the "macro-" plate tectonics which say that the continents have been drifting large distances over large times.
Its not!
What you mean is that you still hope that abiogenesis can be proved to be possible, because if its not, then evolution is a myth.
The Improbability of Abiogenesis According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms. Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small. Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
You not only abhor facts, but logic. Your little syllogism above is absurd, drumroll or no. This isn't creationism, it's cretinism.
No, it is your logic that is flawed, if evolution is going to occur it had to have a beginning, which means that life had to start from non-life.
If that is not possible, then evolution is not possible.
Rounding out the information in my previous posts, here's another poster's presentation of the fish-to-elephant transitional series. The final paragraph is of interest here. Also note that the changes between any two sequential transitionals are small enough that most creationists would write them off as only "microevolution" -- and yet those 50-or-so "microevolutionary" steps turn a fish into an elephant, which even the most stubborn creationist would have to concede is "macroevolution".
Yea, if a fish ever did become an elephant, which it didn't.
LOL!
So in a few posts we have the obvious logic that evolutionary change is inevitable ("microevolution") and supposedly accepted by everybody. Nobody ever seems to identify anything that would stop microevolution from continuing indefinitely, as an absurdly large preponderance of evidence indicates has indeed occurred. Considerable samples of such have been given and waved away already, enough to make it abundantly clear what is going on. A perfect parallel would be accepting the "micro-" plate tectonics we can measure year to year but not accepting despite massive evidence the "macro-" plate tectonics which say that the continents have been drifting large distances over large times.
Well,I do not know what evidence you have for the drifting of the continents, but you have no evidence for Macro evolution.
Evolutionary biologists will often argue that evolution has been observed. By this they mean tiny changes in species that have been seen in nature or in the laboratory. Because we have seen such tiny changes, they argue, given enough time, large changes could also take place. However, this line of argument is not logically correct. Just because I can jump an inch does not mean I can jump to the moon. Just because I can walk an inch does not mean I can walk around the world. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/science.html
Now stop your lying for Lucifier!