What is the case against Evolution?

exchemist said:
Your phrase? I have and it's self-contradictory.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It's convoluted but not wrong. I apologized for the poor sentence construction .
Sufficient means they suffice, i.e. you do not need anything more.
Click to expand...
Suffice for what , "part or the whole"?
Don't try to play Humpty Dumpty. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
globali said:
What about evolution? do you question evolution as well?
Click to expand...

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'.
 
DaveC426913 said:
No, we don't. So why not simply admit it's a mistake that you did say that?
Click to expand...
I did clarify the statement. Are you deliberately ignoring my explanation in your haste to call me "wrong"
The word "sufficient" literally means "needs no more".
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
pluto2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
No more than three elements. "Read it again." Seriously. You wrote it.
Click to expand...
I know I wrote it, they are my words.
You really really have difficulty admitting when you've made an error.
Click to expand...
I did clarify my statement and given the clarification, where then lies the error?
An error in what? Sentence construction or chemical construction?
 
Write4U said:
Read it again......and think about what it says this time.....please.

"Three elements which are "necessary and sufficient" for being used during the emergence of "living" things.

All living things have at least these three elements as common denominators in their patterns of expression"

Where does it say "only"?
Click to expand...
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
 
Beer w/Straw said:
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
Click to expand...
Thank you Bw/S. Next time I'll be sure to include this apparent "necessity and sufficiency".
860-AminoAcidball.svg_.gif
:)
 
Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Write4U said:
Thank you Bw/S. Next time I'll be sure to include this apparent "necessity and sufficiency".
860-AminoAcidball.svg_.gif
:)
Click to expand...
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:

1200px-Adenosintriphosphat.svg.png
 
exchemist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Write4U said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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"? :D
 
exchemist said:
The only biochemically relevant molecules you can make with just C H and O are carbohydrates.
Click to expand...
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.
 
exchemist said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top