Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GalvestonTommy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Can you explain in technical terms (but not so technical that a layman can't understand) what were the chemicals and their reactions that got the whole thing of life started, life from non-life? The term precursor is kind of vague, sort of like some of Dr. Szostak's explanations on the first self reproducing organisms. You arrived at an enormous figure for available resources but what were they? While Dr. Szostak gave very enlightened speculations, he admits that the answer is yet to be discovered.
  2. I realized after posting my smart aleck response that you meant precursors. I think Dr. Szostak's videos tried to explain just what the non-living chemicals could have been that got together and formed the first living organism(s). My posted quotes on May 17 from his videos show that he believes modern lab scientists are still not close to pinpointing the exact chemicals and mechanisms involved. (Those videos were listed on Moontanman's post of Jan. 26). [By the way, I did read (or at least browse) through this entire thread recently. Some earlier posts referred to other posts by a number
  3. How scientific is it to say that abiogenesis is the answer to abiogenesis?
  4. As mentioned in an earlier post my research has included the following college textbooks and other sources: Keith L. Moore, et. al., The Developing Human; Benjamin A. Pierce, Genetics, Fourth Edition; Garrett & Grisham, Biochemistry; Patton & Thibodeau, Anatomy & Physiology; Futuyma, Evolution; Kenneth R. Miller, at least 7 books by Richard Dawkins, Matt Ridley, dozens of other books and hundreds of abstracts, articles, websites and other media. I studied the parts of the college textbooks that pertained to abiogenesis and evolution, which included topics on DNA, RNA and other
  5. I stand corrected. I should have been talking about "The appearance of life on earth...", abiogenesis, not evolution.
  6. And all this time I thought I was sorta nice, not a hard, unreasonable, illogical and unintelligent task master. But, as you said: "we still lack evidence." That kinda goes along with Tour's statement: "The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem." This is with ignoring mythical supernatural and paranormal propaganda. It's only considering the scientific approach. When better scientific evidence arises that supports the theory of evolution, it would definitely gain many adherents.
  7. A good example of how words are defined is found in J. Edgar Hoover's Masters of Deceit (1958) where he tells of different definitions of the word "peace". In negotiations between the West and the USSR. The West's definition of peace was that each sovereign nation could determine their own type of government without outside interference. The USSR's definition was that peace was the absence of everything except communism in the world. So, while a rose is still a rose, the implication is that there is consensus of what a rose is before another name is applied. Random by any other name is st
  8. "predetermined" sounds suspiciously like "predestined" or like all of existence (say a 747) was bound to happen from the beginning of molecular collisions. This is a rather limited definition of the idea of randomness. The insurance salesman finally convinced the old farmer to buy a policy. Before getting him to sign, he asked, “Would you like to add a double indemnity clause?”. The farmer replied, “A double what?” The insurance salesman said, “That is if you die by accident, the policy will pay double.” “Why sure I want that,” the farmer said, “If I die, it shore won’t be a-purpose.”
  9. Again, Tour's video presents his scientific opinion regarding abiogenesis. He does not present it from a creationist's point of view nor does he give his opinion on evolution. In "An Open Letter to my Colleagues" he states: "We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense." He seems to disagree with the deep-time-of-the-gaps opinion that anything can happen if given enough time and that if abiogenesis cannot be achiev
  10. I'm not saying it must be wrong. As you might guess my name is Thomas. I'm a natural doubter. As a youngster, my mother said a visitor once asked her why she let met dismantle the new toy I just received. She said I always did that to see how it worked and then put it back together and enjoyed playing with it. I want to see how evolution works. I'm not saying it doesn't, but explanations with so many "I believes" and "might have been's" bring out the doubter in me. After studying, not just reading, at least 7 of Dawkins' books, I came away with the conclusion that there was a whole lot of spec
  11. Not really. That is why I asked the question: " how many generations will a population of organisms continue to exist (with perhaps a partial jawbone evolving into a complete jawbone) while modifications to the separate genes, gene sets and/or hereditary units accumulate until all of those necessary are in place so that the complete jawbone can be “selected” by natural selection?" Your response included an "I believe" and several "might have beens". That is why I'm not really picturing it happening, whether by a sudden jump or during many eons. Until more solid proofs of what you say "might ha
  12. As mentioned in my post of Thursday at 11:46, I have studied the subject. I posted a list of some of the sources. The Selfish Gene was one of the first I read when I began research 8 years ago. I understand that my 5 steps are not the only way that the theory of evolution is supposed to work, they are perhaps an oversimplification, but I believe that the other proposed or additional processes involved still have to answer my query. I just outlined what I thought was the most predominant process, descent with modification along with natural selection. I'm going to stand my ground with step
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.