What is the case against Evolution?

No it is not. It's convoluted but not wrong. I apologized for the poor sentence construction .

Suffice for what , "part or the whole"?

How about; "being necessary and sufficient for one part of the equation"?

Do you seriously believe I meant to say those three are the only chemicals necessary and sufficient for Life?

I already mentioned that Hazen identified some 500 different bio-molecules being part of Human biology. Apparently that little piece of information has already faded into history.
I listed three necessary chemicals common to all living things. That does not mean being the only three chemicals necessary for life.
(interestingly I was also called on the 500 bio-molecules as being incorrent because the human body has trillions of molecules). You see the problem of parsing and ignoring the qualifier "different", and replacing it with "total'.

Read it again please without parsing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, we don't. So why not simply admit it's a mistake that you did say that?



The word "sufficient" literally means "needs no more".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evolution makes more sense to me than any other theory and there is tons of scientific evidence for evolution and no evidence for God and an intelligent designer.

If there ever was a intelligent designer I think he did a piss-poor job at designing life given the fact that living organisms have tons of bad and terrible features.

Also this brings up another question: If there ever was an intelligent designer of life then what the hell is it doing now? Just resting? Why doesn't he do anything right now? Why doesn't he fix his bad designs?

Intelligent design doesn't make any sense to me but evolution answers tons of questions about life and I think evolution also explains why the world we live in so terrible and 'badly designed'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did clarify the statement. Are you deliberately ignoring my explanation in your haste to call me "wrong"

NO MORE OF WHAT?

Question: are H2O and C used in the chemistry of living things? Do you have H2O and C in your chemical make-up? Do you have sufficient H3O and C in your chemical make-up? Do you need more H2o and C than you have to be alive?

Other chemicals....? Of course...., each being "necessary and sufficient" for their role in the emergence of abiogenesis

Read it again....please.

 

No more than three elements. "Read it again." Seriously. You wrote it.

You really really have difficulty admitting when you've made an error.

 

and the Higgs boson

 

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-does-god-do.160177/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's because this is her first kindergarten project and Mary not around to help

You should see the balls up her brother, JC , made of Eden

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, if amino acids were alive, W4U just left N and an "R" chain, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/blog/scientists-say/scientists-say-amino-acid

 

I know I wrote it, they are my words.

I did clarify my statement and given the clarification, where then lies the error?
An error in what? Sentence construction or chemical construction?

 

I'm glad you took note....this was a major scientific breakthrough, the ability to "conjure" a Higgs boson from the Higgs field....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

p.s. hence the Nobel prize.

 

Aha, now we get the large font, the bolding and we start to break out in colours. You are getting good enough to build your own crank website!

But, I'm afraid, Mr Humpty Dumpty, the English language still has defined meanings for words, whether you like it or not. I know you can't grasp the meanings of words like "function" and "potential". But now it seems we have to add "sufficient" to the list.

You described H, C and O as "Three elements which are "necessary and sufficient" for being used during the emergence of "living" things." And they aren't sufficient at all.

This matters, because other elements such as N, S and P are not only critical to life but are implicated in various interesting ways in a number of the hypotheses for abiogenesis, such as polypeptide synthesis from aminonitriles in the presence of thioesters: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1371-4

 

it was indeed

 

Thank you Bw/S. Next time I'll be sure to include this apparent "necessity and sufficiency".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What "equation"? You get nowhere near any serious biochemistry without N, P and S. The only biochemically relevant molecules you can make with just C H and O are carbohydrates.

In fact, to get close to actual working biochemistry you need not only N, P and S but a few metals as well, e.g. Mg in chlorophyll, Fe in various guises and even Cu in cell metabolism (look up cytochromes).

 

Good. Now here's ATP. The interconversion between this and ADP appears to have been a vital energy carrier in all biochemistry, right from the start:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I did NOT say, "THE three elements which are "necessary and sufficient". just, "three (of the possible many) elements which are necessary and sufficient."
They are necessary and sufficient as components of a pattern. (see #154), seems those three elements are necessary and sufficient to fill the role they play in the pattern of amino acids. Can't very well have amino acids without those three, no? They fill a "necessary and sufficient" (partial) role in the formation of amino acids.

There is no irreducible complexity.

 

"necessary and sufficient (partial)" is a contradiction in terms. It means INsufficient. You berk.


And what's this freebie at the end? A game of "Spot the Non-Sequitur"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you , apparently I was correct in my example of a molecular pattern where H, O, and C are the only necessary and sufficient ingredients.
H, O, and C are "necessary and sufficient" for the role they play in evolutionary abiogenesis.

 

I would argue that those are all necessary and sufficient for the individual roles they play in the evolution of abiogenesis.
As Hazen informed, about 500 different bio-molecules in humans. I have no reason to doubt that statement.