Disprover of Evolution: Peanut Butter

[Il Medico]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504:lol:

[Nolan]

So we need a fairy tale to explain the origin of life because without your god it's a fairy tale? :confused:

Peanut butter is inert you retarded fucks, and you're confusing the process of evolution with "spontaneous generation."

[The Douche]

Fuck it, I'm convinced.

[bcbm]

"why did you decide to become a christian?"

"peanut butter."

[Patchd]

^ This.

[¿Que?]

So what's up with that ant walking in the peanut butter. WTF is that about?

[Nolan]

So what's up with that ant walking in the peanut butter. WTF is that about?

God put it there you heathen. Don't question it.

[Nwoye]

well I guess that makes sense if you don't really think about it.

[Bilan]

Why the fuck would an engineer be a credible source on evolution?
Why not...a biologist? It's at least *more* relevant.

[jake williams]

Why the fuck would an engineer be a credible source on evolution?
Why not...a biologist? It's at least *more* relevant.
He's either totally aware that he's bullshitting, not an engineer, or should be stripped of his credentials, he clearly doesn't understand anything.

[Nolan]

This is where he got his degree:

http://www.officialpsds.com/images/thumbs/Wheaties-Cereal-Box-psd26367.png

[Il Medico]

This is where he got his degree:

http://www.officialpsds.com/images/thumbs/Wheaties-Cereal-Box-psd26367.png
Nah it's more like the prestigious :
http://www.writewhereyouare.ca/graphics/CrackerJacks.jpg

[Devrim]

YouTube is banned here and I can't access it. Could somebody give me a very brief summary of why peanut butter disproves evolution, please?

Devrim

[Nolan]

Youtube is banned in Turkey? Fuck....

[Nolan]

well I guess that makes sense if you don't really think about it.

Well that applies to all of Intelligent Design. And libertarianism, for example, "the free market will keep prices down, quality up, and the constant competition will prevent monopolies cuz every good boy knows the government makes monopolies."

[jake williams]

YouTube is banned here and I can't access it. Could somebody give me a very brief summary of why peanut butter disproves evolution, please?

Devrim
The argument is that because evolution (specifically abiogenesis) asserts that life originated from carbon compounds and such being exposed to energy; and because during food processing, such compounds are exposed to energy; and because even this happens, no life has spontaneously been generated in peanut butter; abiogenesis, and thus evolution [which in and of itself is fallacious] must be false.

[Q]

While I find the video amusing, I wouldn't exactly be able to refute it out of hand. Biology isn't a strong point of me... So, what are the scientific theories on this matter?

[¿Que?]

While I find the video amusing, I wouldn't exactly be able to refute it out of hand. Biology isn't a strong point of me... So, what are the scientific theories on this matter?

Well, I think for one thing, it does not differentiate between different types of matter. The premise of the argument is an extreme oversimplification of the theory of abiogenesis. It basically goes matter+light/energy=new life. Given that everything in the universe that is not energy is matter, one has to wonder how they decided upon peanut butter to make their point. From the premise of their argument, just about anything, not just foodstuff, but anything from laptop PC's (made of matter) to the car you drive (also made of matter) could potentially, when exposed to light and energy create "new life". Obviously this is a very stupid argument that requires virtually no scientific knowledge to refute.

[jake williams]

While I find the video amusing, I wouldn't exactly be able to refute it out of hand. Biology isn't a strong point of me... So, what are the scientific theories on this matter?
- The generation of organic matter generally requires huge amounts of energy, for example from lightening, which isn't typically if ever present during food processing.

- More importantly, the generation of organic matter is an extremely rare process that, if it happens at all, can take billions of years on a planet as large and dynamic as the earth.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I find the "banana refutation" of evolution more compelling myself.

2z-OLG0KyR4

But the two arguments invoked in tandem would surely convert any logical individual into a believer.

[Q]

- The generation of organic matter generally requires huge amounts of energy, for example from lightening, which isn't typically if ever present during food processing.

- More importantly, the generation of organic matter is an extremely rare process that, if it happens at all, can take billions of years on a planet as large and dynamic as the earth.

As there is no "official" definition as to what is organic matter, I'll go with C-H molecules. I can remember quite a few molecules with these elements from my highschool days and NASA scientists have reason to believe that such matter also exists in other celestial objects, like comets. This undermines your second statement.

More to the point, my question was about what scientific theories there are regarding life being created from matter. Is abiogenesis the only theory? Has life ever been created in laboratory conditions using this theory or is it more a "working assumption"?

[jake williams]

As there is no "official" definition as to what is organic matter, I'll go with C-H molecules. I can remember quite a few molecules with these elements from my highschool days and NASA scientists have reason to believe that such matter also exists in other celestial objects, like comets. This undermines your second statement.
I explained myself poorly. I should have referred to, with respect to the video, the generation of life from non-alive stuff, not the generation of organic matter from non-organic matter. It's true that a lot of the chemicals which constitute living beings are common in a lot of places and are relatively easily generated by natural processes in inorganic matter. What's not so common is the generation of living organisms, which is what is at issue here.


More to the point, my question was about what scientific theories there are regarding life being created from matter. Is abiogenesis the only theory? Has life ever been created in laboratory conditions using this theory or is it more a "working assumption"?
For evolution to be the source of life, it has to have arisen from inorganic matter some how, from a collection of non-living matter, because living things weren't present at the start of the universe. They have to have showed up from somewhere; either they were generated in the universe by natural processes, or they weren't, but science doesn't really have an explanation if they weren't.

That general explanation is basically the only scientific one. There is a really broad debate about what the specific process was, though. For one thing, I'm personally not an expert in the field, and I could easily be wrong, but I think it's still considered conceivable, though not likely, that terrestrial life didn't originate on Earth (this theory is called panspermia). But that theory requires life to have originated elsewhere in the universe through some process of abiogenesis.

The exact process through which it happened is debated, but it pretty much has to have happened.


But the two arguments invoked in tandem would surely convert any logical individual into a believer.
...or at least make a good sandwich.

[Chambered Word]

Why did you have to remind me of this video? :crying:

[Le Libérer]

This is what happens when scientific theory is applied to fairy tales. You get nightmares about food.

[Devrim]

The argument is that because evolution (specifically abiogenesis) asserts that life originated from carbon compounds and such being exposed to energy; and because during food processing, such compounds are exposed to energy; and because even this happens, no life has spontaneously been generated in peanut butter; abiogenesis, and thus evolution [which in and of itself is fallacious] must be false.

Thanks, it is a pretty poor argument really.

Devrim