Jump to content


Photo

If Evolution Is True...


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 July 2009 - 11:18 PM

Ozone is needed to protect life on land with the present oxygen atmosphere.  That does not mean that life could not evolve in the sea or below the sea bed where it would be screened from UV radiation, but still exposed to chemicals produced in the atmosphere.
In fact UV radiation makes carbon monoxide (CO) from a methane-ammonia-water atmosphere, and CO + water vapor + UV makes several chemicals containing 1 or 2 carbon atoms.
"The organic molecules are dissolved in water and thus escape destruction by photolysis. Photolysis of water vapor with carbon dioxide did not yield organic compounds under these conditions."
http://www.springerl...x0013g77u51v37/


Life cannot form and survive in a goo that is 98% toxic to it. With the atmosphere still forming, and the earth cooling. The waters would be hot and toxic. Do you even know how much toxins can be produced in one eruption?

Attached File  eruption3.jpg   15.44KB   5 downloadsAttached File  volcanic_20ash1.jpg   31.08KB   8 downloads
Attached File  volcanic_ash2.jpg   24.37KB   7 downloads

There is a man and a helicopter in one pic. And there is a river flowing in another pic. Notice how far down that river has already erroded. Now with this much stuff spewing out of a volcano, do you actually think life can over come so much toxins when the earth itself cannot even get beyond global warming? One major eruption produces more toxins for the ground, air, and oceans than man has ever produced in his existence. And now some how man has out done valcanoes?

The earth could no more over come the effects of all those valcanoes erupting than it could with global warming. So neither could life.

I think it has been clearly explained several times in this forum that 'no free oxygen' in the early earth atmosphere does not mean that oxygen is not combined in H2O, CO2 etc.
Have you forgotten this, or do you have some source proving that my assertion is false?  If so please provide a reference, preferably a link to an on-line site.

View Post


Poof, presto, water. Poof, presto, ozone. Poof, presto, clean oceans for life to grow and exist. Yeah, I understand. God did it, you just don't want to admit to it.

So poof poof away.

#42 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 July 2009 - 11:24 PM

Of course not. It's been bandied around a lot for quite a few years. Wouldn't you want a great deal of evidence before you gave up such a strong belief?

This article has been around since 2006, so I was hoping someone might be able to clarify what happened to this research.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


I cannot believe you used the word belief. :blink:

Maybe some of what I have said about evolution is sinking in? Na.

#43 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 July 2009 - 11:32 PM

I cannot believe you used the word belief. :blink:

Maybe some of what I have said about evolution is sinking in? Na.

View Post


;)

Does this perhaps give you a hint as to why science doesn't deal in absolutes?

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 July 2009 - 03:44 AM

Yep, one cannot be absolutey right if one starts out with a implied truth. Problem is, this also gives some the excuse to lie and justify it through the different avenues available to them through evolution.

#45 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 08 July 2009 - 03:59 AM

Can you think of a better way to word this so as to avoid confusion?

View Post


I don't think I have any good answers. The problem is one of simplifying for ease of comprehension that there's no fixity of species, that all species are always in a state of flux, and that the pace of evolution varies according to environment. One example of attempting to get at least a couple of these points across is analogizing species change over time to ring species, but I've never seen this have any success.

It's a conundrum! :blink:

--Percy

#46 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 July 2009 - 04:41 AM

Yep, one cannot be absolutey right if one starts out with a implied truth. Problem is, this also gives some the excuse to lie and justify it through the different avenues available to them through evolution.

View Post


The problem is being able to nail down what is an absolute truth. They exist no doubt, but being able to claim something as an absolute truth would take omniscience. Scientists are pretty good, but I doubt any of them would claim to be Gods...even the ones trying to create life :blink:

Regards,

Arch.

#47 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 08 July 2009 - 05:39 AM

If there is one chance in a google... 

View Post


I think you mean googol. Google is a search engine or an Internet company.

...it will happen, right? You see it's not only odds that is the problem with evolution, it's timing. Everything in the very begining has to be so timed, with only one chance. The odds of both are not even calcuable. 

View Post


Concerning the odds of a natural origin for life, the odds are not calculable because we don't know the events and processes that were involved. It would be like me trying to calculate the odds of you getting to work on time given that I don't know anything about you, or if you even have a job.

Example: Life has to form along the lines of how the atmosphere is forming. There is a certain point from abiogenesis that a ozone layer is needed to protect the newly forming life from UV rays. If the life forms before the ozone can block enough UV rays, the life form will be burned until dead. Which will make it not be able to survive long enough to reproduce. And if it did, it's offspring could not survive either. 

View Post


How can you be so certain that the first life came about in areas exposed to the Sun, and not in water deeper than a meter or so, or in caves, or within the earth, or near black smokers (undersea hot water vents), or somewhere else not exposed to destructive radiation?

Or perhaps UV rays were essential to providing a necessary type of energy for the first self-replicating molecules, that having bonds that were continuously broken and reformed was an essential part of producing the variety necessary to exploring the possibility space. Once a foothold was gained other less exposed ecological niches could be explored as variations split off.

The possibilities are endless.

When cavemen first observed lightning they probably hypothesized a miraculous origin because they could conceive of no natural way that such a thing could happen, but we eventually figured it out. In other words, the conclusions of cavemen of a miraculous event were premature.

Now there are scientists hypothesizing about ways in which life may have originated, and maybe we'll eventually figure it out. But even if we never figure it out scientifically, then in the creation/evolution debate all that means is that we don't know if the reason we are unable to figure it out is because we have insufficient evidence (after 4 billion years), or because we have insufficient analytical ability, or because it was a miraculous event. How would you know which?

Also, how does one get rain before plants make oxygen? Plants need water, water needs oxygen? So which cames first? 

View Post


Water existed on the planet from the very beginning. The vast majority of our free oxygen doesn't come from splitting apart water molecules, which requires a great deal of energy, anyway. Our free oxygen originated with the first organisms capable of photosynthesis. We know roughly when the transition to an atmosphere with a significant oxygen component happened (a lengthy process beginning maybe two and a half billion years ago) because of geological layers high in iron oxides (in essence, rust) where the available iron dissolved in the seas combined with the newly available oxygen, precipitated out, and sank to the bottom, something that didn't happen in older layers.

The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. Do the math. .1% = 3,000,000 (3 million) differences. So .2% means we have 6,000,000 (6 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does. So sell the percent to the masses and hide the number. 

View Post


I don't know where the 99.8% figure for the similarity between human and chimp genomes comes from, but that sounds a bit high. The Evolution section of the Wikipedia article on the human genome gives the figure as 95%. I think scientists can choose from more than one way to calculate the figure. I'm not actually sure, but perhaps one way is to compare actual nucleotide sequences, and another way would be to compare the similarity of proteins produced by genes.

Concerning percentages, I don't know why you think anyone's trying to hide anyting. Percentages are the way we almost always communicate this type of information. The population of the US is fairly large, too, and we almost always characterize ourselves in percentage terms. All sports do the same thing. Commentators never say, "He has 140 hits in 472 at bats," they say, "His batting average is .297." Getting back to that Wikipedia article, given the number of genes in the human genome, six million base pair differences becomes an average difference of a mere two amino acids per produced protein.

Then every other planet should have life as well. Do they? You can one moment sell how easy evolution is so that the odds are ignored because it makes evolution work. Then on the other hand sell how hard it is as the reason it took so long to evolve. So which is it? You cannot have opposites making a theory work just because you want it to be true. 

View Post


The actual expectation isn't that every planet should have life, but that planets with conditions conducive to life might have life. The only places in the solar system that might have conditions conducive to life are Mars and Titan, and in the case of Mars you have to speak in the past tense, for current conditions there do not seem conducive to life, at least not as we know it. It has too little water or atmosphere, and it is much further from the Sun. But evidence indicates that Mars might have had substantial water and atmosphere in the past, and so perhaps life once existed there, and if so it is possible that some of it evolved to survive in the now much more hostile conditions and could still be present. We continue to send research missions to Mars, so time will tell.

Well you guys do imply that you have proven evolution to a true absolute fact, right? 

View Post


No, evolution is not a "true absolute fact." Nothing in science is a "true absolute fact." By definition science is tentative, always ready to change theory in light of new evidence or improved insight. I explained way back in Message 5 how within science even facts are tentative, how they are definitely not equivalent to TRVTH.

You believe lightening started the process of life in abiogenesis right? 

View Post


Again, no. We do not know how life began. There are origins of life researchers working on the problem, but so far there are no ideas so cogent that any consensus has formed. All they have are conjectures and hypotheses at this point.

But it's claimed to be a scientific theory, and a true fact, right? 

View Post


The theory of evolution is a theory. That evolution has occurred is an inference (from a great deal of evidence) of which we are so certain that, paraphrasing Gould, it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent, and so we call it a fact.

--Percy

#48 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:28 AM

The theory of evolution is a theory. That evolution has occurred is an inference (from a great deal of evidence) of which we are so certain that, paraphrasing Gould, it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent, and so we call it a fact.


Hi Percy,

Whats perverse is calling something a fact that is'nt based on any facts,just the fact that he wishes it was.

#49 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 08 July 2009 - 10:09 PM

So odds are not an issue? If there is one chance in a google it will happen, right? You see it's not only odds that is the problem with evolution, it's timing. Everything in the very begining has to be so timed, with only one chance. The odds of both are not even calcuable.

View Post


When looking at any event that has happened in the universe it really does not make sense to consider it's probability in terms of odds (I'm talking about on a cosmological scale of course). Why you ask? Because the odds for anything happening the way it did is so exponentially small, that when you look at the way things are, you can't help but notice that it had almost no chance of happening the way it did; however, that would be the case for every possible way the universe could form, with life or not. If you look at the beginning of the formation of the universe the potential for possibilities is so vast it's incomprehensible, you might even say the ways in which the universe could possibly unfold is infinite. But it has to happen one way, right? So our universe existing as it does had a 1 in infinite chance of doing so, but that will always be the odds no matter which way the universe exists.

To narrow the scope of odds to just our planet does not help much either. Consider the following questions: What were the odds 1000 years ago that you would exist where you are sitting right now? What were the odds in the last rain storm that every drop of water would fall precisely where it did? The odds are so vast they are not even calculable, but despite all odds the rain storm happened as it did, and the sequence of event unfolded as they did from 1000 years ago to allow you to exist as you are. Do you consider these events miracles because of all the odds against them? If so, then everything would be a miracle and the term sort of loses it's meaning. The point is, it has to happen one way, and it just so happened that our planet formed the way it did so as to allow life to emerge through a natural sequence of events. This is no more miraculous than the formation of Saturn which has no life at all. The probability for both such occurrences happening precisely as they did is the same on a cosmological scale.

Example: Life has to form along the lines of how the atmosphere is forming. There is a certain point from abiogenesis that a ozone layer is needed to protect the newly forming life from UV rays. If the life forms before the ozone can block enough UV rays, the life form will be burned until dead. Which will make it not be able to survive long enough to reproduce. And if it did, it's offspring could not survive either....So what are the odds that the exact timing for life to form did, when the ingrdeints needed did not exist yet?

View Post


We have no idea where or how the first life forms emerged, in fact we can only speculate on what the conditions were like that allowed such a thing to happen. The bottom line is we don't know, and we may never know for sure exactly how it happened. However, the world is a big enough place with enough chemical reactions and a vast amount of possible variables, known and unknown, that would allow such an event to take place, with even maybe multiple different processes.

Who knows, it may even be a universal law where planets with conditions such as ours necessarily must produce life by virtue of it's very nature, one can only wonder. There is no way to know if life being part of the universe is a necessary component that must inevitably occur in one of the universe's stages of development. Think of it as the universe hitting puberty, where certain changes take place in it as it matures and gets older, the changes being the emergence of life. The point being, that life only seems miraculous and improbable to us because we don't fully understand the dynamics on how a universe can develop, life may be an intrinsic property for the development of a universe much like stars, black holes, and planets, but since we can only study our one universe, and in a very limited scope at that, it seems that life happened by chance, but that is coming from a very narrow perspective. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that at one time in the universe there was no life, and then at a later time there was. And because the universe has always been an existence of countless ongoing natural processes, then we conclude that there is a natural process from which life emerged from non-life.

Do we have all the answers? I think it's an obvious resounding no. But that is what science is, a quest to find answers about our universe, and right now the theory of evolution best explains the data that scientist have gathered. Although, and I'm sure any scientist will admit this, there is still very much to learn in order to make TOE true with a higher degree of certainty, it remains as the best explanation for science despite it's inadequacies in fully explaining with precision the exact process from the origin of life through all the evolutionary paths to modern biology.


So evolution is as easy as baking a cake? Interesting.

View Post


Funny. :lol:

Also, do you know what the total is that 99.8% comes from? And also why the total is never printed because people would figure out evolution is not true.

The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. Do the math. .1% = 3,000,000 (3 million) differences. So .2% means we have 6,000,000 (6 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does. So sell the percent to the masses nd hide the number.

So here is the perfect example of how evolution hides the truth in math so that the deception can be sold to the masses while the truth is hidden. If not, answer as to why no one book on evolution gives the actual number of the percentage difference?

View Post


So the usage of a percentage is a conspiracy theory to espouse non-believers, hmmm. Sorry Ike but your paranoia is unfounded. It doesn't matter if you use a percentage or the actual figures or even reduce the ratio, it's all the same number. 6,000,000/3,000,000,000=1/500=.2%, any way you slice it up it represents the same figure. I'm sure if any student wanted to find out the actual numbers from the percentage they could ask their teacher or figure it out on their own, after all it's not a big secret.

In any case, by printing the actual number difference in species genomes, small or great, would not disprove evolution by any stretch of the imagination. Variation based on such differences is what produces change, the theory of evolution needs there to be such differences in order for the theory to be coherent. If there were not 6 million different base pairs between humans and chimps then we would be the same species, but the fact that we do share 2,994,000,000 pairs out of 3 billion, makes a good case in saying we are very similar and possibly descendants of the same ancestor.


Then every other planet should have life as well. Do they? You can one moment sell how easy evolution is so that the odds are ignored because it makes evolution work. Then on the other hand sell how hard it is as the reason it took so long to evolve. So which is it? You cannot have opposites making a theory work just because you want it to be true.

View Post


No, why would every planet have life if every planets composition and condition is not like earth? It's obvious that the nature of earth's condition is conducive to life and that Jupiter's isn't. Now if you could find a planet in another solar system that has a similar star to our sun, with a planet at equal distance from their star as our earth is from our sun, and that also had a similar planetary composition and formation as our earth, but you found no life then you might have a case. Now if you found a billion of these planets and none had life, your case would even be stronger, but what if on every such planet you found some form of life, primitive life on some and advanced on others, what would you say then? Obviously right now there is no way to know what is happening outside our solar system, because everything we see beyond our solar system are events long gone and already over. But as far as we know, only earth like planets can sustain life, and since we cannot leave our solar system, we have no idea if there are any out there, but it is definitely a possibility.

Well you guys do imply that you have proven evolution to a true absolute fact, right? So instead of complaining when someone actually makes you own up to your claims of this, why don't you provide the information required to meet the status in which you exalt the theory to?

View Post


Now see, Ike, you can't generalize proponents of the theory of evolution into a category of "you guys" because not every one views the theory in the same light. It would be like me saying 'you guys imply that you have proven Islamic creationism to be a true absolute fact.' There are many creationists accounts that share one over arching principle, but none have proven to be dominant over the other, as far as truth is concerned; while all creationist believe a god(s) created life, not all are in the same boat as to what god(s) did it. Adherents to TOE share similar schisms, all will agree that life changes over time and does so naturally, but there is still much disagreement over precisely how it began and has happened. Evolution is not a true absolute fact, it is a working theory that best describes our evidence but is a long way from being scientific law.


You see your claims that evolution is a true fact are only warranted if you can provide the evidence. Complaining that it's impossible to provide what I ask proves that the claims are fraudulent and unwarranted, and basically a deception. Just like hiding the real numbers for DNA difference. What is wrong with providing actual math numbers that is basic math? Is it to decieve the dummies in highschool to believe a deception? Explain it to me.

View Post


There is plenty of evidence that suggests evolution is true, the only problem is you look at that evidence and interpret it differently, in favor of creation. And that's what it all comes down to, perspective. And when it comes to providing any concrete evidence from either position both are faced with limitations. For instance, creationist say show us macro-evolution, and we say we can't it takes too much time. We say show us god physically, and you say you can't it's not his will or something of that nature. You say prove abiogenesis, and we say we are trying but we have our work cut out for us. We say prove you can make a man from dirt, and you say only a god whom you will never witness performing such an act can do it. It seems we are in the same boat as far as proof is concerned.

If, as you say, the inability to provide the necessary evidence your opponents require to prove your assertions true is grounds for "prov[ing] that the claims are fraudulent and unwarranted, and basically a deception," then your position fares no better, my friend.


So now growing is evolution? And you guys say I don't know what evolution is?

View Post


Cute, but if by a small chance you are serious you missed my point by a long shot.

How are you going to fill the gaps of time? Are will the excuse that because of time we cannot test it, be used forever? You believe lightening started the process of life in abiogenesis right? By doing this you concede to a higher power even if it's a natural one. Now how many lightening strikes are there a year? The Earth has 100 lightning strikes per second - 3.6 trillion per year! ...
Now how many spawn off new life? ZERO. So what does that tell you?

View Post


No, time will not be used as a so-called 'excuse' forever, I'm sure in 2 million years TOE would have the empirical data you so desire, but it will obviously be too late for you.

Lightning is one possible variable needed, who knows there may be more than one abiogenesis process. I have only claimed that life happens naturally, and because lightning is part of nature I am not conceding to anything.

As far as your question to how many spawns of new life has there been, nobody, including you, knows at all. Because as far as I know, there is no active scientific program that can predict where lightning will strike all over the world at all times, and that are ready with a microscope to see if indeed new life has emerged. Unfortunately for your disbelief in abiogenesis, new life could be forming everyday and you would never know unless through some extraordinary coincidence and incredible luck you were looking at a place on earth through a microscope and lightning just happened to hit where you were looking and there were the right materials and conditions needed for abiogenesis to take place for you to witness. But just because it's improbable that any one will actually witness it in naturei,t does not make the actual process impossible.

But in each step you find something missing because everytime you try to duplicate the cake it does not work. After using every known ingredient in the world, you find that you cannot duplicate the process. But you want everyone to believe the cake exists. So what do you do? You find work arounds to fill the void about the cake. So that people will buy it that the cake actually exists, and there is a process for making and baking it.

View Post


I think you are confusing tentative inferences based on research and data to try and explain gaps in the theory as deceit and purposeful lies to confuse people. These 'work arounds' you speak of, seem to be referring to unproven hypothesis' that are suggested by scientist to be needed to strengthen TOE. These work arounds are not arbitrarily decided upon as a method to sell the theory, but are legitimate obstacles that scientist are having difficulties overcoming to fully understand the process, but regardless of the challenge they are researching fervently for consistent proof none the less.

#50 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 09 July 2009 - 04:43 PM

But in each instance of filling in the blanks, you actually realize more problems. So more workarounds have to be thought up. But you can only go so far before people start seeing this. So what needs to be done next is that anyone whom dares to challenge you cake idea get their credibility destroyed. Make all anti-cakers look stupid, uneducated, unintelligent morons. Just because they claim that there must be a cake maker and cake baker, when your idea is that the cake happened all by itself. So the anti-cakers get stereotyped into a box and labelled as fundamentalist. In this way your self forming cake cannot be challenged because the anti-cakers are stereotyped into being too stupid to do so. So you eliminate all challengers by doing this which allows your idea to remain supreme by other means beyond what you were supposed to use (ever heard of science).

View Post


Well that's just human nature Ike, and is not limited to evolutionists. If any christian interprets the bible to mean something else that is not in accordance with their churches view and they start preaching their interpretation at the church they get ostracized too. But not every one who disagrees with the opposed view looks down on the person who maintains the view the way you suggest. It's only the extreme fanatics that do. But those fanatics do not represent everyone that adheres to a worldview. It's unfortunate, I'll agree, that that sort of behavior happens at all, no matter what world view we are speaking of, but you can't judge everyone in a lot based on a few bad apples.

But it's claimed to be a scientific theory, and a true fact, right? So now you claim we just barely touch the surface? I think you are crying uncle because I called you guys bluff on how provable evolution is in reality.

View Post


A scientific theory is the best explanation scientist can infer from a set of observations to describe a phenomena. Theories are conceptual and abstract, and thus they are never considered right or wrong in a factual sense. Instead, they are continuously supported or challenged by scientific observations concerning the idea. So any one that claims that evolution is an absolute fact either does not fully understand how much work still needs to be done, or is not receptive to the legitimate challenges that TOE faces in order to become scientific law. But just because it has challenges and the need for more research does not make the theory false by any means. It's a work in progress, and really just beginning considering how much we still don't know. And despite a few difficult road bumps, the more we learn the more convincing the theory becomes.

#51 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:32 PM

Life cannot form and survive in a goo that is 98% toxic to it. With the atmosphere still forming, and the earth cooling. The waters would be hot and toxic. Do you even know how much toxins can be produced in one eruption?


'Toxin' is not one of life's absolutes.
Oxygen is toxic to many anaerobic organisms, and some of them actually prefer mixtures of gases such as SO2, H2S, CO2 etc which we would find very toxic.

If abiogenesis is possible, then the first living organisms would have formed in an atmosphere with little or no free oxygen, but with SO2, H2S, CO2 and perhaps CO all present. These gases would not be toxic to the organisms which evolved under those conditions.

#52 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2009 - 09:20 PM

Also, do you know what the total is that 99.8% comes from? And also why the total is never printed because people would figure out evolution is not true.

The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. Do the math. .1% = 3,000,000 (3 million) differences. So .2% means we have 6,000,000 (6 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does. So sell the percent to the masses nd hide the number.

So here is the perfect example of how evolution hides the truth in math so that the deception can be sold to the masses while the truth is hidden. If not, answer as to why no one book on evolution gives the actual number of the percentage difference?

The most quoted % difference between man and chimp is about 1.2% ie 98.8% similarity, but this amounts to about 35 million differences. Most of these are single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs.

Some changes are insertions or deletions of strings of nucleotides, or inversion of a string. When the total number of nucleotides affected by these insertions, deletions or reversals is added up this gives about 5% differences, 95% similarity.

For differences between two non-related humans, estimate is 0.1%, 99.9% similarity.
Differences number about 3 million. Again, this is counting number of differences, not total number of nucleotides affected.
Another slightly related number is that there are about 3,500,000 identified human SNPs which have frequency greater than 1% (meaning that at least 60 million individuals carry each of these SNPs).

These numbers are from memory, so any skeptic is welcome to check.

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 July 2009 - 02:10 AM

Nothing in science is a "true absolute fact." 

View Post


Is that a "true absolute fact"?

#54 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 02:58 AM

'Toxin' is not one of life's absolutes.
Oxygen is toxic to many anaerobic organisms, and some of them actually prefer mixtures of gases such as SO2, H2S, CO2 etc which we would find very toxic.


Attached File  miller_0013.jpg   11.76KB   8 downloads
This is an example of what Miller's experiment created. The reason he had to filter off the undesirable goo that was created along with the amino acids, is becaue his experiment would not have been as valuable.

If abiogenesis is possible, then the first living organisms would have formed in an atmosphere with little or no free oxygen, but with SO2, H2S, CO2 and perhaps CO all present.  These gases would not be toxic to the organisms which evolved under those conditions.

View Post


Lightening creates molecules as well.

Attached File  LightningOzone.jpg   29.05KB   7 downloads

The most damaging to the abiogenesis process is oxygen. If it combines with the newly formed structures, it will destroy them. It's called oxygen burn I believe.

Attached File  eruption3.jpg   15.44KB   5 downloads

1) You take the product produced by Miller's experiment, which is very toxic to life.
2) You add "no" ozone layer, so a full dose of deadly UV rays are present.
3) You add the oxygen produced by lightening, which is as deadly to the newly formed structures as UV rays are.
4) The toxins from volcanic eruptions.
5) The actual voltage (lightening 300,000 volts vs. 10,000 volts) from lightening. And you will have actual structures destroyed.

What possibility does anything have to exist and form life? You look at all this and it's a pipe dream at best.

#55 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 07:03 AM

What possibility does anything have to exist and form life? You look at all this and it's a pipe dream at best.

View Post

Yeah, but what alternative answer could be given that won't be scoffed at, and snickered about around the water cooler, down at the lab?

#56 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:24 AM

1) You take the product produced by Miller's experiment, which is very toxic to life.
2) You add "no" ozone layer, so a full dose of deadly UV rays are present.
3) You add the oxygen produced by lightening, which is as deadly to the newly formed structures as UV rays are.
4) The toxins from volcanic eruptions.
5) The actual voltage (lightening 300,000 volts vs. 10,000 volts) from lightening. And you will have actual structures destroyed.

What possibility does anything have to exist and form life? You look at all this and it's a pipe dream at best.

View Post

It seems you can not even paste appropriate pictures to 'illustrate' your mistaken ideas of 'truth'.
Your lightning picture shows lightning in the present atmosphere breaking O2 apart, producing N2O and O3 - not really important when there was no free O2.
Also, the voltage which produces the lightning strike is not relevant to the chemistry, and you have no way of knowing what it actually was.

How do you know what is deadly to a form of life which you know nothing about?

For evidence of life which is completely different from the oxygen-based respiration we are most familiar with, see:-
http://www.scienceda...90709140815.htm
These bugs live on methane and iron and manganese oxides and give off CO2.
"While manganese and iron oxides are made in today's oxygen atmosphere, they where also formed by photochemical reactions in a low oxygen atmosphere. These oxides were probably more abundant in the early Earth's oceans than sulfates. "

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:28 AM

How do you know what is deadly to a form of life which you know nothing about?

View Post

I like the way you try to assert yourself over others with comments like these. Have you been approaching others this way for 72 years? Really? :rolleyes:

Think about it, Keith. It's based off of what we do know about life. Isn't that how science is supposed to work? :P

#58 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:02 PM

It seems you can not even paste appropriate pictures to 'illustrate' your mistaken ideas of 'truth'.
Your lightning picture shows lightning in the present atmosphere breaking O2 apart, producing N2O and O3 - not really important when there was no free O2.
Also, the voltage which produces the lightning strike is not relevant to the chemistry, and you have no way of knowing what it actually was.

How do you know what is deadly to a form of life which you know nothing about?

For evidence of life which is completely different from the oxygen-based respiration we are most familiar with, see:-
http://www.scienceda...90709140815.htm
These bugs live on methane and iron and manganese oxides and give off CO2.
"While manganese and iron oxides are made in today's oxygen atmosphere, they where also formed by photochemical reactions in a low oxygen atmosphere. These oxides were probably more abundant in the early Earth's oceans than sulfates. "

View Post


Is that the best you can do in your attempt to debunk his. Point out one mistake and ignore the rest of the problems? But then again I did not expect you to be able to adress each problem, because if you did you would find there is no work arounds. Of course if you want to make up some from scratch, we are all ears.

#59 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:09 PM

The most quoted % difference between man and chimp is about 1.2% ie 98.8% similarity, but this amounts to about 35 million differences.  Most of these are single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs.

Some changes are insertions or deletions of strings of nucleotides, or inversion of a string.  When the total number of nucleotides affected by these insertions, deletions or reversals is added up this gives about 5% differences, 95% similarity.

For differences between two non-related humans, estimate is 0.1%, 99.9% similarity.
Differences number about 3 million.  Again, this is counting number of differences, not total number of nucleotides affected.
Another slightly related number is that there are about 3,500,000 identified human SNPs which have frequency greater than 1% (meaning that at least 60 million individuals carry each of these SNPs).

These numbers are from memory, so any skeptic is welcome to check.

View Post


I noticed that no one has been able to provide school text books that actually show the numbers along with the percent. Is it because highschool students are to stupid to understand basic math? Or could it be that it a better selling technique for a weak theory to do this?

I onder what the reaction will be when I teach this to a mens group at my church? And then to the teens group. Probably shock that certain information was with held because they were deemed to stupid to understand.

#60 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2009 - 08:40 PM

I noticed that no one has been able to provide school text books that actually show the numbers along with the percent. Is it because highschool students are to stupid to understand basic math? Or could it be that it a better selling technique for a weak theory to do this?

I onder what the reaction will be when I teach this to a mens group at my church? And then to the teens group. Probably shock that certain information was with held because they were deemed to stupid to understand.

View Post

My impression of school text books is that they are always many years out of date, and also very watered down to keep the explanations simple.
Also, I think the creationist crusade against evolution has been sufficiently successful that no school textbook is going to touch the ape - human differences for fear of being banned in Texas and/or California.

How about posting your entire presentation to your mens group here?
Have you checked and verified the numbers I suggested?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users