From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 13:10
To : Arthur Biele
Subj: Evolution
Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite:
>JH> life has evolved from inorganic matter, name the source. Not a
>JH> theory of how it might happen, a source that it has been observed
>JH> to be done.
JM> Although we aren't at that point yet, the Miller/Urey experiments
JM> have taken us a lot further than creationists ever expected.
AB> Quite true, John. Miller/Urey demonstrated the tremendous
AB> difficulties in realizing life produced from non-life.
Perhaps, but nature has a four billion year head start on us.
AB> From what we
AB> know today, the theory of life arising from chemicals by natural
AB> laws alone would be considered falsified if evolution was not so
AB> dogmatically accepted as a fact, which it is on philosophical and
AB> sociological grounds only.
False. Evolution does not address biopoesis. Fallacy #1: You
predicate a strawman.
JM> Since we are here, and all the evidence so far indicates we
JM> evolved and were not specially created as an intact species, your
JM> argument IS specious!
AB> Whew! John. That's a tall order. All evidence so far, indicates
AB> that we evolved, AND that we were not specially created. John, I'm
AB> knew to this conference. Would you be willing to share some of this
AB> evidence that supports evolution? I will reply as to why Dr.
AB> Leipzig is wrong.
Perhaps you do not know that I have returned from Central Asia,
so that you may address me directly on these points and I will
show you your errors.
JM> "Biopoesis, or the origination of life on Earth. As evidenced by
JM> abundant evidence, from the fossil record, geology and
AB> This is an assertion, he offers no support that their is abundant
AB> evidence in the fossil record for evolution.
Well, I thought that if you really did have an interest in
evolution and evolutionary theory, you would venture out to a
museum or a library. Inasmuch as you seem only intent on
trying, however delusively and fallaciously, to discredit
evolution; I'll note that the earliest life forms on Earth were
simple unicellular organisms. Later in time, life forms are
considerably more complex and multicellular. Exactly what
evolutionary fact states: that life, over the span of
geological time has progressed from the simple to the more
complex. Fact.
JM> laboratory experiments (Urey and Miller, etc.), amino acids and
JM> nucleotide bases, the building blocks of proteins and nucleic
JM> acids, form by natural chemistry under a variety of simulated
JM> primordial Earth conditions.
AB> These experiments help disprove the notion that life can arise from
AB> non-life via natural processes. Dr. Leipzig demonstrates here that he
AB> does not have a grasp on this topic, but rather, has bought into
AB> popular misconceptions.
No, it instead demonstrates your fury in developing strawmen to
knock down. Evolution does not address biopoesis; regardless of
you insistence that it does, that is indeed why that particular
branch of science is called PRE-evolutionary protobiogenesis.
JM> What has yet to be determined is
JM> the exact chemical processes by which these essential organic
JM> ingredients were developed into the first molecules capable of
JM> self-replication, AT WHICH POINT NATURAL SELECTION OR ORGANIC
JM> EVOLUTION COULD BEGIN. (So much for your objection to the fact
JM> that evolution says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about origins and your
JM> continual harping about origins and evolution.)
AB> This part is pointless despite his 'na-na na-na-na'! He flatly admits
AB> the problem of abiogenesis is unsolved.
You have a keen grasp of the obvious. But, again you posit a strawman.
Nothing in natural science is proven (save that for vodka and
mathematics). Science is not static, but, dare I say, an evolving body
of knowledge. Certainly, the precise mechanism of abiogenesis is still
unsolved, but that does not preclude scientists and science to address
that question in order to examine the literally tons of hard cold
physical evidence and developing theories to explain those groups of
facts. However, evolution still has exactly zero to say
regarding origins.
Art, that's how science works. Perhaps if you took the time to
research the modes and methods of science, you would not be so
confused.
JM> The early atmosphere of the Earth was quite different than that
JM> today. It was enriched in nitrogen, water vapor, hydrogen and
JM> carbon dioxide (purely geological information here, Ronzo the
JM> Obtuse, read the rocks). There was no free oxygen, as oxygen
JM> was a by-product of early cellular respiration. Life cannot
JM> form today because it would be immediately destroyed by
JM> oxidation.
AB> Well John, I kind of regret writing the following since Dr. Leipzig is
AB> not on this conference, and I doubt you could defend what he wrote,
AB> but since you posted it and it looks scientific enough to fool some
AB> people, I will continue.
Well, Art, pretty strong words of yours, completely lacking in
evidence. Well, I'm here now, so lets see all your refuting
evidence.
AB> To his credit, he left out methane (an important ingredient in the
AB> Miller/Urey experiment and to forming life itself) from his model of
AB> the primitive atmosphere. However, there are further problems with this
AB> model for the primitive atmosphere.
AB> 1. The lack of free oxygen would leave the upper atmosphere without
AB> an ozone layer to filter out the ultra-violet rays from the sun.
AB> These rays will penetrate the ocean waters tens of meters deep,
AB> destroying molecules necessary for life should any form in the
AB> oceans. Ocean currents will circulate the ocean waters exposing
AB> any such molecules to these destructive rays.
The oceans are, and were, more than a few 10's of meters deep.
AB> 2. The ultra-violet rays will convert surface minerals into
AB> materials that will destroy organic molecules even more
AB> effectively than oxygen.
Evidence? This is a total fabrication. UV rays are in no way
energetic enough to cause photologic changes in common
minerals; the silicates that were the abundant mineral clan in
the early days are quite stable and resistant to photodissociation.
AB> 3. The ultra violet rays will break apart water vapor into hydrogen
AB> and oxygen.
In only a vanishingly small percentage of the hydrosphere; hardly
enough to be worthy of mention; in fact, 10^-7 not worth mentioning.
AB> Hydrogen, due to it's light weight will escape into
AB> the upper atmosphere and space, leaving behind the much heavier
AB> oxygen.
See immediately above.
AB> This mechanism for oxidizing the earth's atmosphere can be
AB> a substantial source of of atmospheric oxygen, rivaling the
AB> production produced by plant photosynthesis.
Baloney. Patently false. Plant photosynthesis created the early
oxygen atmosphere. Oxygen is very active chemically and would
almost immediately be removed through oxidation or the
development of monomers.
AB> As Dr. Leipzig
AB> correctly points out, this oxygen in the atmosphere will prevent
AB> the formation of organic molecules needed for life.
At least you got one point correct; and you needed my help at that.
*.. "Creationist nonsense" is redundant.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
# BGQWK 1.0#38 #43
--- GTMail 1.001
* Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0)
Message #2167 [Holysmoke] [2166 <ÄÄ] [ÄÄ> 2170]
From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 09:38
To : Arthur Biele
Subj: Evolution
Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite:
JM> You don't have much of a handle on what "science" says about
JM> anything it seems... Rather than paraphrase, perhaps a quote from
JM> a well-respected scientist might help... The following is courtesy
JM> of Dr. Martin Leipzig, and was written to an Evangelical Christian
JM> creationist named Ron Stringfellow, a man after your own heart.
JM> Life is merely the product, derived from inorganic (non-life,
JM> as you so pejoratively put it) components, over the span of
JM> geologic time, of a step-by-step process, governed by the
JM> natural laws of chemistry, with no particular amino acid
JM> sequence required. The same holds true for nucleic acids. It
JM> did not have to be comprised of any particular nucleotide
JM> sequence, but only had to be SOME sequence, whose probability
JM> of arising over a period of millions of years is unity.
AB> Mathematicians consider anything with a probability as low as 10 to
AB> the 50th power to one to have zero chance of ever occurring.
You posit the logical fallacy of the "Grand Success". What
next, the old "tornado through a junkyard" argument? Biopoetic
theory does not claim that life arose, fully functioning, from
the primordial soup in one step; as you so falsely claim. But
rather, it followed a series of steps, constrained by the
naturalistic laws of chemistry and physics.
AB> There are 20 amino acids needed for life. These are called proteinous
[specious numerical"argument" deleted]
AB> for getting the x number of proteins needed for life.
AB> I've only touched on the surface of the probability arguments against
AB> life arising from non-living matter. From what I've written, it is
AB> clear that Dr. Leipzig's probability of 1 for life arising over a few
AB> million years via natural law and chance is absurdly wrong.
Let's take a quick look at your "argument":
1. You rail on about biopoesis as an attack on evolution.
Evolution, as it has been pointed out to you numerous times,
does not deal with biopoesis. Strawman #1.
2. Continuing in this vein, you build upon that strawman by
some numerical blather showing how statistically life could
have not arisen naturally. You posit the "Grand Success"
fallacy, which I've already destroyed.
AB> The
AB> probability for the existence of life is indeed 1, since life does
AB> exist, but the scientific evidence shows that bio-chemical evolution is
AB> extremely implausible. The correct answer, there is a Creator who
AB> created life.
3. And since I wasn't here last Tuesday, I MUST have been
golfing on Mars. Finally, you strike up the bland for the old
"False Dilemma". "It's either that life arose naturally OR God
did it". A or B. Black or white. Completely fallacious. It
COULD be that the Earth was seeded by incredibly advanced
extraterrestrials in a manner that just mimics evolution.
Possible? Sure. Probable? Nahhh...But at least it's better than
your "Divine fiat creation" as it requires exactly less than
one miracle and absolutely no supernatural intervention.
JM> There is a question of the mode of this assembly (believe it or
JM> else, Ronzo, science doesn't profess to have all the answers....
JM> yet.)
JM> Theories include those built on protobiogenesis experiments
JM> carried out by Sid Fox at the U of Florida (proteinoid
JM> microspheres...want a few references to check this out?), Graham
JM> Cairns-Smith argues for clay mineralogy providing the template
JM> for self-replicating forms (want some references?), B. McKean
JM> argues that abiogenesis may have occurred near deep sea vents
JM> (want some...oh, never mind). Tom Cech and Sid Altman note that
JM> RNA (ribonucleic acid) can act as an enzyme, and as such was
JM> probably the link between prebiotic synthesis and the first
JM> living cells.
AB> There are also the bubble theory and the life from out of space
AB> theory.
Whoa. A self-debunking fundy. What next? Rather puts paid to your
"Evolution or Creation" only argument, doesn't it, Art?
AB> The fact that there are so many diverse theories being pursued
AB> to explain biochemical evolution tells us that no one is even close to
AB> telling us how life could have evolved from non-living chemicals.
"These mysteries are not for the eyes of men!" Not sound
thinking in ancient days, Art, why should it be sound thinking
today? You criticize science and scientists for doing science,
yet you counter-offer with the old "we don't yet know, so God
must have done" it "argument". Such inquiry. Such utter
codswallop.
Intellectually, the ground you're on is as solid as quicksand;
and like that material, you're in way over your head.
*.. And to think, he's the product of 3,800,000,000 years of evolution.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
# BGQWK 1.0#38 #43
--- GTMail 1.001
* Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0)
Message #2168 [Holysmoke]
From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 11:41
To : Arthur Biele
Subj: Evolution 1/2
Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite:
JM> JH> I am disputing the possibility that a cell
JM> JH> should evolve from inorganic building blocks.
JM> a well-respected scientist might help... The following is courtesy
JM> of Dr. Martin Leipzig, and was written to an Evangelical Christian
JM> creationist named Ron Stringfellow, a man after your own heart.
JM> The early atmosphere of the Earth was quite different than that
JM> today. It was enriched in nitrogen, water vapor, hydrogen and
JM> carbon dioxide (purely geological information here, Ronzo the
JM> Obtuse, read the rocks). There was no free oxygen, as oxygen
JM> was a by-product of early cellular respiration. Life cannot
JM> form today because it would be immediately destroyed by
JM> oxidation.
AB> As can be seen from what I posted thus far, Dr. Leipzig's primitive
AB> earth is already plagued with problems that threaten the destruction
AB> of any organic chemicals that might form, and this from ultra-violet
AB> radiation.
Wrong. UV is not all that terribly active [deference to
Conwell's "You can get seriously mutated by standing in the sun
for 5 hours"] in reference to other energy forms of the time
(lightning, cosmic rays, etc.), and marine waters are quite
an effective filter. Further, what activation UV does provide
could have been one of the driving mechanisms in preevolutionary
protobiogenesis. You take that UV is deleterious to todays life;
the situation was NOT the same on the prebiotic Earth.
AB> 'But', Dr. Leipzig might object, 'if ultra-violet radiation breaks
AB> down water vapor into hydrogen and oxygen, thus oxygenizing the
AB> atmosphere,
Photodissociation did not oxygenate the early atmosphere. You
are wrong. The stratigraphic succession of reduced
pre-biotic rocks evidence your error. In fact, as noted in
Levine, Augustsson and Natarajan (1982), "Photochemical
calculations indicate that the total oxygen column density of
the prebiological paleoatmosphere did not exceed 10^-7 of the
present level." Your cosmic photolysis and abundant prebiotic
oxygen "argument" is summarily debunked.
AB> why do the 'old' rocks indicate that the primitive earth
AB> atmosphere was free of oxygen.' After all, Dr. Leipzig did allege that
AB> scientific evidence has been ascertained demonstrating that the
AB> primitive atmosphere contained nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor, and
AB> carbon dioxide, and no free oxygen. 'Purely geological information
AB> here, Ronzo the Obtuse, read the rocks.'
Exactly, there are vanishingly few (read: no) pre-biotic oxidized
sediments. Look at the post-biotic sediments: thousands of
meters of banded iron formations. Why? Because life itself is
responsible for the Earth's O2-rich atmosphere. Before life,
there was a reducing atmosphere. It was not until the origin,
evolution and proliferation of photosynthetic organisms that
oxygen became an important atmospheric gas. The evidence is there
if you care to examine it yourself, rather than on relying on your
gurus of the ICR to misinterpret it for you.
AB> Do the rocks confirm Dr. Leipzig's model of earth's primitive
AB> atmosphere? NO! It most certainly doesn't.
Wrong again, Art. Take a look at the Hadean and Early Archean rock
record. You are in error yet again.
AB> So who's obtuse?
You do have a mirror, don't you?
AB> We now
AB> have a demonstration of how the dogmatism of evolution has greatly
AB> distorted science, as it often does!
It is you who are distorting the argument in your insistence
that evolution HAS ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with biopoesis.
Your argument is flawed from its basic premise and yet you
continue to try to build upon that failed foundation.
AB> To begin with, elements contained in the primitive atmosphere of the
AB> earth was not determined from the rocks.
Absolute 100% USDA bullshit. You are either lying or know not
of what you speak. Which is it, Art?
AB> Evolutionary scientists first
AB> determined what the atmosphere on earth ought to be in order to be
AB> able to produce organic compounds.
From what evidence or data? Hand waving and ass-grabbing like
you're attempting? Wrong yet again, Art, but geological
evidence was THE basis for early studies in biopoesis. "From
geological evidence are we only able to reach conclusions
regarding the composition, structure and content of the
pre-biotic paleoatmosphere. The geochemical composition and
mineralogy of these rocks enable us to reconstruct that which
life itself inevitably altered." (From Walker, Derins and
Levine, 1987).
AB> Scientists like A.I. Oparin and
AB> J.B.S. Haldane proposed a sequence for life's origins in the 1920's,
AB> from complicated molecules in an oily liquid called coacervate
AB> droplets, to the first protocell, to enzymes, to finally genes.
Yes, and we have expanded and revised that version in the
intervening 60 years. Or, haven't you heard?
AB> To get
AB> the complicated 'organic' molecules needed for life, it was determined
AB> what chemicals the primitive atmosphere needed to have (the original
AB> list contained Methane, but evidence tells us that we never had any
AB> significant quantities of methane in the early earth atmosphere) and
AB> also that oxygen must not be present. A.I. Oparin determined the earth
AB> needed to have a strongly reducing atmosphere as organic compounds
AB> will be destroyed by oxygen.
A lovely piece of deductive logic on Oparin's part. One that
perhaps you should try to emulate, if possible.
AB> But what about 'pure geologic information' from Dr. Leipzig's 'rocks'.
AB> John, you quote, as you put it: a 'well respected scientist', Dr.
AB> Martin Leipzig.
Well, I've presented it and you seem unable to comprehend it
due to your pet preconceived notions. Oh, well, do not ascribe
your shortcomings in understanding to someone else.
AB> Obviously this respect is not for his work in the
AB> origin of life from non-living matter.
Hardly. I am a quite successful petroleum geologist; this
origins business is only because some benighted creatures, such
as yourself, seem to think that it has something to do with
evolution. Of course, as I and other have pointed out, it does not,
yet, I cannot sit idly by and let your sort of disinformation
go unchallenged.
AB> takes us back to 3.2 billion years ago. Before that, the evidence
AB> is too sparse, because too few suitable rocks are available to
AB> us."
Yep, the record get more tenuous the further back in geological
time you go. The Earth is a dynamic and evolving planet, Art,
not the static mudball you caricature it as.
AB> What happened is that a few evolutionary scientists, wishing to be
AB> among the first to confirm Oparin's hypothesis, fervently looked for
AB> old sedimentary rocks with little or no oxygen, and they found some. In
AB> their fervor they proclaimed 'fait accompli', and evolutionists,
AB> hungry for confirmation of evolution, accepted and passed on this
AB> erroneous evidence in support of their system of belief.
HA! Quick! Alert the global scientific conspiracy! There's data
we must suppress!
Sorry, Art. Science is self-policing and self-correcting. Such
deceptions are merely a fanciful fabrication on you or your
master's part in trying to obfuscate reality.
AB> Since then, a
AB> more objective review of the old sedimentary rocks indicate that on
AB> average, they are similar to very recently laid down sedimentary layers
AB> of rock.
You're way out in left field here, Art. You are completely and
totally 100% wrong. Recent sedimentary rocks are shot through
with biogenic structures, materials (glauconite, fecal pellets,
globiginera ooze; some of the most pervasive recent sediments)
and signs of life. Early rocks are devoid of all these
attributes, and their mineralogy and petrology are considerably
different.
AB> suggesting that the early atmosphere is very much like it is
AB> today.
Wrong. The lack of oxidized sediments in early rocks say you
are lying. "...an early atmosphere of CO2 and N2 is favored by
photochemical as well as GEOLOGICAL AND GEOCHEMICAL
CONSIDERATIONS." (Levine, Augustsson and Natarajan, 1982)
Sorry, Art. Debunked yet again.
AB> But as can be seen by Dr. Leipzig's post, any faulty evidence
AB> (in this case, the 'pure geological evidence read from the rocks') for
AB> evolution dies a very slow death, such is the dogmatic evolutionist's
AB> need to
Now the ad hominem. Oh, well, Art, you want to denigrate this
to that level, I suppose I oblige.
You are ignorant, Art; and you knowingly profess lies,
misinterpretations and selective filtering to shore up your
shaky fundamentalist beliefs. Oh, well. Have at it Art, more
evidence that you know not of what you claim and your
insistence on deliberate misinformation.
*.. Taglines: your chance to piss someone off.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
# BGQWK 1.0#38 #43
--- GTMail 1.001
* Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0)
Message #2169 [Holysmoke]
From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 12:02
To : Arthur Biele
Subj: Evolution 2/2
Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite:
AB> (Continued from previous message)
AB> scientifically support his world view, his belief system, his
AB> religion.
My world view is that there is too much inculcated ignorance
under the guise of religion. You support that contention quite
nicely.
I have no belief system nor religion; but rather investigate
the facts of the Earth, analyze them and interpret them in a
purely naturalistic and mechanistic manner.
I leave chasing Gods, supplicating to deux et machina, and
invoking the supernatural with those, like yourself, so immersed
in pseudoscience and illogic to try, however in otiose and
vainly, to wrangle and mangle fact into something that
seemingly, at least to the benighted clans from which you hail,
into supporting your strawmen, fallacies and illogic.
*.. Science does not deny God. It just makes him unnecessary.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
# BGQWK 1.0#38 #43
--- GTMail 1.001
* Origin: The Debate Garden - 713-556-9167 - Houston, TX (1:106/4015.0)
Message #2170 [Holysmoke] [2167 <ÄÄ] [ÄÄ> 2223]
From: Marty Leipzig Posted: 13 Jul 94 19:21
To : Arthur Biele
Subj: Evolution
Arthur Biele, uptight about suppositories, said to John Musselwhite:
>>> Continued from previous message
JM> All the evidence supports the view that the precursors of life
JM> arose quite naturally (no god or gods necessary), and that
JM> life's emergence, given millions of years and the whole Earth as
JM> a laboratory was a probable, if not inevitable, event."
AB> Well Dr. Leipzig, so dogmatic, so wrong.
Not at all. The evidence supports exactly 100% of what I wrote;
your wailings and gnashing of teeth notwithstanding.
JM> JH> how it did? So you answer me: evolution is a fact, so the
JM> JH> unlikelihood of it happening is irrelevant. How do you know that it
JM> JH> is a fact? I ask. You answer me, as if it was the only explanation
Evolution is both fact and theory. How unfortunate you cannot
even grasp this simple explanation.
AB> Jesse is more accurate on this matter than Dr. Leipzig was, and Dr.
AB> Leipzig is a scientist? - how sad.
How sad that someone as woefully uninformed as you still makes such
ignorant and ridiculous accusations.
How sad that you cannot see the logical fallacy form which you
proceed and that you compound this egregious error by heaping
more and more fallacies upon your flawed basic premise.
One does not have to be a scientist to discern your errors, but
a scientist can show exactly how you are wrong, and dishonest.
AB> I'll close with a summary from a scientist who is an acknowledged
AB> authority on evolution and the origin of life:
AB> "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the
AB> fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better
AB> perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on
AB> Earth rather than to it's solution.
Yep. It's a knotty problem, and one not yet solved. So lets all
fall upon our knees and praise God for creating life.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.