You are missing the whole point of this discussion. It is a fact that there are all sorts of gaps in the fossil record, which would be considered basic types according to my model as I mentioned before. I provided an Ernest Mayr quote to illustrate this point along with other quotes from prominent experts. However, you argued that this was best explained by the artefact hypothesis.
Then, I mentioned that the details of the Cambrian explosion was considered to be a real event based on current evidence. More importantly, I made it very clear that all it takes is ONE genuine gap between lineages to establish that common descent and common design models are mutually exclusive. That’s it! Now, are you saying there are no real gaps within the Cambrian explosion event?
Sure, I will be more clear.
You said that " If the ancestors are viruses (if the ancestors were anything, really), that’s not separate creation; it’s common descent. Again, LUCA has nothing to do with the origin of life; you need FUCA, the first universal common ancestor. Anyway, LUCA could exist under an unguided or guided model of evolution."
According to observations and experiments, this is NOT true as I explained.
I provided articles that explained how current evidence shows that LUCA’s genetic make-up must have been RNA based. However, LUCA did not possess an ancestral membrane that is needed for the transfer of information to successive generations.
Therefore, LUCA has everything to do with the origin of life according to the common design model because LUCA could only exist under a guided model of evolution.
This might have been the case if the rest of the bible did not demand a literal view of Adam and Eve. However, as another article mentioned, 'the rest of the Bible clearly presents Adam and Eve as real-life people who lived in a real-life Garden of Eden. They literally turned against God, they literally believed the devil’s lie and they were literally thrown out of the Garden (Genesis chapter 3, verse 24). They had real-life children and passed on the problem of sin and being against God to all of them. And that problem was passed down all the following generations to us today.
God promised a real-life Saviour to save us from this real-life problem (Genesis chapter 3, verse 15). That Saviour is Jesus Christ, called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 45), who died on a literal cross and literally came back to life again. Those who trust in Jesus will have literal salvation and spend forever in a literal heaven.’
Therefore, it would clearly be deception if Jesus was just using the common cultural background of his audience to make a point but actually knew they were not real people. In fact, you can apply this same reasoning to just about everything he said if this were the case. Moreover, the good Samaritan story is NOT backed up by the rest of the bible like the Adam story.
Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary (approximately 3,100 words) compared to the English vocabulary (estimated to be 1,000,000 words). Hebrew words often have several literal meanings. For example, Linguistic scholars acknowledge the Hebrew word yom (translated “day” in English) has several literal meanings: a period of daylight, 12-hour day, 24-hour day, time, period of time with unspecified duration, and epoch of time. While modern English has numerous words to describe a long time-span, no word in biblical Hebrew adequately denotes a finite epoch of time other than yom .
So you can’t infer a 24 hour day period from reading the text.
Furthermore, Peter addresses the extent of Noah’s flood. In both cases, Peter qualifies the Greek word cosmos, translated as “world.” In 2 Peter 2:5 he writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same as the world of the Roman Empire.
This principle of conservation, or limitation, In God’s acts of judgment clearly applies to the Genesis flood. It means that if humans had spread as far as Antarctica, The flood would have covered Antarctica, Destroying the Emperor penguins along with the people, Except those aboard the ark. If no people lived in Antarctica, God would have had no reason to destroy the place or its penguins. Nor would Noah be required to take a pair of Emperor penguins aboard the ark. ”
Thus, a Global flood model claims to destroy all of life in general except Noah and his family, which would cover the entire planet. A worldwide flood model that I adhere to claims to destroy all of human life (except Noah and his family), which covered only a local area at that time in history. More importantly, we actually do have evidence for this model.
From the article and a different one:
“Genomes show remarkable similarities to natural languages.”
Grammar of protein domain architectures | PNAS
“A computer OS is described by a regulatory control network termed the call graph, which is analogous to the transcriptional regulatory network in a cell .”
Let me explain in a clear and concise manner why you are special pleading. You specifically said that…
“The expectation of abiogenesis is that it shouldn’t happen under timescales and conditions practical for current experimental methods.”
I said in response that we found and reproduced several material mechanisms in a short amount of time that contributed to the origin of life process from current experimental methods. Then, you responded with…
“And if the mechanism takes 300 million years to work, then we can’t reproduce it in a reasonable time-frame, now can we? We’ve been running tests for several decades now, it has been an extremely fruitful field with substantial progress all the time.”
I explained that there are two problems with this. First off, you suggested that there is a material mechanism out there that requires millions of years instead. But, this is clearly special pleading because you are creating an unjustified exception in comparison to the several material mechanisms we have discovered in a short amount of time using current experimental methods.
Secondly, as @John_Harshman pointed out and I am going to paraphrase now:
“If you’re appealing to unknown future results, all you’re doing is ignoring current results. We have to judge hypotheses based on data we have, not data we hope might turn up some day. In particular, the data we have are conclusive. And we are very, very unlikely to find a new [material mechanism that does not require human intervention to produce life according to current experimental results].” We have tested pre-biotics experiments under a wide range of conditions.
Just read the sources below this video or watch the video itself from 10mins into it:
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - YouTube
Not really, but Go on and show me otherwise.
In that case, Please read this article so you can understand the argument and then look into the other source to get all the latest evidence that supports the article’s premise that are listed below the video OR you can choose to watch 11mins into the video:
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) - YouTube
Again, false. Digital information is fundamental NOT emergent from matter or brain chemistry. Please watch 11:15mins into this video or read the sources below the video:
The Emergent Universe - YouTube
Then, give me the source and quotes from it to support your claim.
That is not true. I am just going to have to copy and paste what I argued in my previous topic:
Scientists were successfully able to synthesize the RNA molecules of a virus and reconstruct a virus particle from scratch. They accomplished this by creating another virus and used it’s parts, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus in order to solve the problem of an unstable RNA.[1] This is how human designers operate all the time. They use preexisting mechanisms, material parts and digital information to assemble designs in order to solve a problem. This is no different from what we see within origin of life experiments as well.
For instance, whenever unguided chemical processes under atmospheric conditions were left to themselves without any interference, they did not produce the desired results. Rather, the living state would always subside and turn into “useless networks of RNA sequences” as demonstrated by Szostak and Bartel (1993) where more than half of the pool of RNA molecules precipitated when incubated for 90 minutes at 37º C in high concentrations of Mg2+ and monovalent ions and even more rapid at higher temperatures. [just ask for reference]
They were able to solve this problem by tying the molecules onto a substrate to make sure the pool of RNA molecules do not diffuse and form intermolecular reactions, and, thus, safely incubated. This is similar to what we see from observations I mentioned above where the mineral surfaces of the earth would have contributed centrally to the linked pre-biotic problems of containment and organization.
Therefore, we have basis to say that RNA viruses were developed within the pool of self-replicating RNA sequences by an intelligent agent, which can only be identified as a transcendent cause. This is because functional RNA sequences or RNA viruses have not yet been observed in nature or laboratory to self-replicate without the help of other living things or intelligent life. [2]
However, the main reason why I believe this agent most likely created and designed the first life to be viruses is because they not only display elements of functionality, but look as if they perform important and overarching purposes in ecosystems that could only be done by an intelligent designer according to PACE experiments.
For instance, PACE utilizes a mutant M13 bacteriophage whose gIII gene is replaced by that for the protein of interest (the mutant phage is called Selection Phage, SP) where successful SP propagation is linked to the activity of the protein of interest . Moreover, “SP carrying a mutant protein with enhanced activity will have a fitness advantage over other SP particles, because the enhanced protein activity allows for increased pIII production, thereby increasing offspring production”. [3]
Now, it is important to note that they did not design or use specialized proteins beforehand, but the experimenter still played a fundamental role in these experiments because they were the ones that chose the protein of interest . Without this targeted protein of interest by the researcher, it would have been an unsuccessful result.
However, to be clear, I am highlighting this experiment in conjunction with previous experiments showing how viruses were created from scratch. Both experiments combined would show how God created and designed viruses to function like the viruses we see in the deep-sea oceans I mentioned above, such as the…
Major viral impact on the functioning of benthic deep-sea ecosystems
Viruses ability to manipulate the life histories and evolution of their hosts in remarkable ways.
[1] Poliovirus Baked From Scratch | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)
[2] Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications