Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

If Evolution Is True...

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith C

Ikester's explanation of why he considers organs of different complexity eliminate the possibility of evolution:-

Random chance and accidents. Role the dice and lets see if these two organs the vision center of the brain, and the eye will evolve at the same time.

 

More complexity = more mutations required. More mutations required = more time needed.

 

Most generous interpretation is that Ikester is starting from no eye and no optic nerve/brain and rolling one die to generate mutations possibly leading to the eye and another possibly leading to a brain. In that scheme, it would actually be difficult or impossible to synchronize the two developments.

The problem is that this scheme (if it is what Ikester really means) has nothing to do with evolution.

 

The real situation is that the first light-sensitive spots must have been useful for survival, reproduction, etc and so right from the first must have required connection between the sensor and some responder device. Evolution of the eye-vision system then starts from a working system and the essential requirement is that neither original component is deactivated before it is replaced by something better.

 

As an example showing a very simple vision system which does not involve any brain see:-

Precursor eyes prompt movement of marine zooplankton towards light

"In animals with complex nervous systems, neural impulses are sent from photoreceptor cells to the brain's visual centres. When the researchers labelled a P. dumerilii larva's photoreceptor and traced the path of its nerve fibre, they were surprised to find that, rather than connect to the larva's simple brain, it links directly to the nearby cilia belt. These cilia serve as the swimming motor for the larvae, propelling them with a beating motion. The finding revealed a direct coupling between the light-sensing eyespots and the phototactic swimming of marine larvae (see page 395). "We expected some more complex neurobiology behind it and it was just fascinating to see that it was so simple," says Jékely, now at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany.

 

The team also used fast video microscopy to detail how the eyespots mediate navigation. By stimulating one eyespot with a light beam, they observed that the cilia adjacent to the eyespot slow their beating in response to the light. The cilia on the opposite side do not slow, so propel the larvae with greater force, steering them towards the light much as differential pull on the oars of a canoe causes it to change direction. "

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/.../7220xiiia.html

Pasted this extract for those without access.

The explanation showed how this simple single cell spirals upward toward light - very useful for a photo-synthesizing organism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well going by observation, one can also see that science through evolution has not been able to totally do away with the Bible or creation. And since they cannot do it in scientific means, poisoning young minds towards any religion is a much better way to do it when your science cannot, right? That is why organizations of Christian hatred like the Rational Response Squad exist and are so popular. Atheistic evolutionist hatred goes a long way in molding a poisoned mind. And there is money and status in it as well.

 

But it's also going to backfire. How? When the 7 years starts, it will be the biggest revenge upon those whom have done this.

34685[/snapback]

"The point was these changes in the science record are a good thing" and you start talking about hate crimes. And at the very end you talk about 'revenge'? I didn't think vengeance was part of the Christian belief. Turn the other cheek and all that.

 

The only point I'm trying to make here is that science progresses. Do you think this is a good thing?

 

How about T-Rex blood and veins? O sorry,yo guys need to ignore that one because it does not support the old earth view which is required for evolution to work. My bad.

34685[/snapback]

Again, rather irrelevant from the point I was making, which was that you didn't know about the latest developments in abiogenesis and seemed to be implying people were just making up statistics. But if you want to talk about the T-Rex tissues that have been found I'm happy to.

 

You go on any atheistic-evolutionist forum and it pounded unmercifully on every Christian that shows up. You guys need to bully an use strong arm tactics to convince people which in my opinion shows how weak the theory is that such things need to be resorted to even with all the mountains of claimed evidence. Is it as big as Mt. Everest yet? ;)

34685[/snapback]

I'm talking about learning the technical jargon of the field and you go off and talk about bullying tactics. Keep it on topic ikester. If you go to forums and tell people the lingo their using is wrong because it differs from your understanding of the word, and that you're not interested in learning the different terminology, don't blame me when they get upset.

 

You're clearly not interested in learning ike, you've already dismissed the potential to learn without even hearing the premise.

There is a difference between learning and brain washing.

34685[/snapback]

Yes ikester, one of the major differences is in listening to other options, rather than dismissing them before even hearing them.

 

Question: Why do absolutes need to be removed from reality in order to be taught evoluton?

34685[/snapback]

Not reality ike, just science. I've gone to the effort of explaining this on another forum. Let me know if you can't find it and I'll give you a copy/paste :D

 

Well at least birds learned to build nests.

34685[/snapback]

Yep, and humans climbed down from the trees. Kind of makes some sense that we wouldn't need to lay eggs.

 

Sure, as long as yo get the presto magic part to work,right?

34685[/snapback]

What magic ike? You've said that DNA can duplicate itself? We know that mutations happen? So which part holds the magic?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1% = 30,000,000 (30 million) differences. So .2% means we have 60,000,000 (60 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does.

34686[/snapback]

That's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

 

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

 

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?

34686[/snapback]

That you must move very quickly to get to all 100 lightning strikes every second and verify this claim.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ikester's explanation of why he considers organs of different complexity eliminate the possibility of evolution:-

 

Most generous interpretation is that Ikester is starting from no eye and no optic nerve/brain and rolling one die to generate mutations possibly leading to the eye and another possibly leading to a brain.  In that scheme, it would actually be difficult or impossible to synchronize the two developments.

The problem is that this scheme (if it is what Ikester really means) has nothing to do with evolution.

 

The real situation is that the first light-sensitive spots must have been useful for survival, reproduction, etc and so right from the first must have required connection between the sensor and some responder device.  Evolution of the eye-vision system then starts from a working system and the essential requirement is that neither original component is deactivated before it is replaced by something better.

 

As an example showing a very simple vision system which does not involve any brain see:-

Precursor eyes prompt movement of marine zooplankton towards light

"In animals with complex nervous systems, neural impulses are sent from photoreceptor cells to the brain's visual centres. When the researchers labelled a P. dumerilii larva's photoreceptor and traced the path of its nerve fibre, they were surprised to find that, rather than connect to the larva's simple brain, it links directly to the nearby cilia belt. These cilia serve as the swimming motor for the larvae, propelling them with a beating motion. The finding revealed a direct coupling between the light-sensing eyespots and the phototactic swimming of marine larvae (see page 395). "We expected some more complex neurobiology behind it and it was just fascinating to see that it was so simple," says Jékely, now at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany.

 

The team also used fast video microscopy to detail how the eyespots mediate navigation. By stimulating one eyespot with a light beam, they observed that the cilia adjacent to the eyespot slow their beating in response to the light. The cilia on the opposite side do not slow, so propel the larvae with greater force, steering them towards the light much as differential pull on the oars of a canoe causes it to change direction. "

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/.../7220xiiia.html

Pasted this extract for those without access.

The explanation showed how this simple single cell spirals upward toward light - very useful for a photo-synthesizing organism.

34687[/snapback]

But can the life form determine prey from the hunter using this? And can he determine a mate from the hunter? You see a vision center that interpretates each step of the process is needed.

 

Question: If you take two types of brain's.

 

1) One blank as a vegetable.

2) The other as smart as one can be.

 

By what known process does the Brain become smart? And how does the process evolve?

 

You see the vision center of the brain not only has to be there. But it has to have the ability to process the information sent to it. Would you expect the speech center to be able to process vision also? A blank brain is like a blank hardrive. Information cannot be added until it has a way to be added. But, there is another problem. How does the brain learn how to process the information? It would be like a person building a computer with no bios program, and no operating system. You could turn it on, but it would do nothing.

 

Example: Can you run one of today's games on a Dos based computer? Of course not. Now why is that? It because:

 

1) The processing of such vast information, the processor is not fast enough to do.

2) The base operating system is not compatible.

3) The hard drive would not have enough room.

 

So what kind of problems will each one of the above cause?

 

1) If the vision information cannot be processed fast enough, a big delay in what we see and then comprehend causes problems.

 

Example: Could a baseball player see and hit a ball that he does not see thrown until 5 seconds after it's thrown? Can a person driving a car miss another car that pulled out in front of them 5 seconds after it did?

 

You see our processor being the speed that it is, allows us to function in everyday life. Vision not working like this causes more problems than it solves.

 

2) And if the brain cannot process the information properly, then it means nothing and might as well not exist.

 

3) And if the brain does not have enough capacity, it can learn no more once a certain point is reached. And like a full hard drive does when it gets full. The whole system slows down.

 

So how does the brain learn how to learn and also how to process from a blank slate? The brain did not evolve smart now did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

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.

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.springerlink.com/content/tvx0013g77u51v37/

 

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

 

1) The water? In which you must provide the oxygen source and then prove it.

2) The plant? In which you must provide a water source. And a oxygen source for the ozone so that the plants can live.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

 

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

Arch,

 

Evolution supposedly explains new traits,which lead to new species not variations of existing traits.

 

Were looking at different traits like a baculum,etc. that exist in apes,but not humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You have to have oxygen to combine with first,Keith.

 

Which came first?

 

H2O,CO2,or O2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

 

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

Arch,

 

Evolution supposedly explains new traits,which lead to new species not variations of existing traits.

 

Were looking at different traits like a baculum,etc. that exist in apes,but not humans.

34692[/snapback]

Interesting. I just looked up the differences between two humans DNA and found this article.

 

Differences between humans - 2006

 

What's peoples interpretations?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all very dependent on what those 60 million differences are. Just for a little bit of useless information, there are ~100,000 hairs on a human head. Now consider the DNA to make those also has to have colour, shape, frizz, length etc.

It's common to make a big number look small. It's all part of the selling process of evolution. You now have 5,900,000 left. Good luck.

 

Very quickly ike, you and I have several hundred thousand differences between us, and that's only looking at our hair.

There are 3,000,000 diference average if you are not related to someone. Less through family relations. That is why the possibility for organ transplants outside of the family are rare to find a match for. And no match will ever be found in a chimp.

 

That you must move very quickly to get to all 100 lightning strikes every second and verify this claim.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

34689[/snapback]

Very lame at best. You cannot debunk the reality, so you try to make me look stupid? Has evolution become that desperate?

 

And by the way. Do you think it's okay for creationsts to use evidence found by evolutionists? From the forums you guys hang out at, I'd say no. So what makes evidence you find only suitable to be used for one idea only?

 

Edit: Math corrected

Edited by ikester7579

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

response to information about eyespot linked directly to cilia:-

But can the life form determine prey from the hunter using this? And can he determine a mate from the hunter? You see a vision center that interpretates each step of the process is needed.

 

Question: If you take two types of brain's.

.......................

 

How about trying to walk before you can run.

Evolution does these things slowly, as needs, problems and opportunities arise.

 

At present our organism is a single cell with several cilia around its it, and 2 eye-spots. Hardly equipped to avoid a predator except perhaps by avoiding the brightest lights where the predators pickings are richest.

This could mean something like saturating the light sensor at a moderate light intensity so that motion toward the light lows down.

An easy first step.

Then the survivors of this first challenge are faced with some other difficulty - and so it goes for about 2 billion years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arch,

 

Evolution supposedly explains new traits,which lead to new species not variations of existing traits.

 

Were looking at different traits like a baculum,etc. that exist in apes,but not humans.

34692[/snapback]

Interesting. I just looked up the differences between two humans DNA and found this article.

 

Differences between humans - 2006

 

What's peoples interpretations?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

34694[/snapback]

LOL, you mean a chimp is closer to me than my brother? This is just to laughable. Thanks for that link.

 

I'd trust this source better: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060301_crime

 

Also, I made a mistake in the math. It's 3 million in .1% not 30 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's common to make a big number look small. It's all part of the selling process of evolution. You now have 59,900,000 left. Good luck.

There are 30,000,000 diference average if you are not related to someone.

34696[/snapback]

Hang on, aren't you saying there are 30 million differences between two people (ie you and me)? So we're halfway there and we haven't even left the species yet?

 

Very lame at best. You cannot debunk the reality, so you try to make me look stupid? Has evolution become that desperate?

34696[/snapback]

No, the problem here is that you haven't proven this is reality. So unless you can convince me that every single one of those 3.6 trillion bolts hasn't created life I'd like to see you retract that "ZERO" statement. It's an assumption based on very little.

 

And by the way. Do you think it's okay for creationsts to use evidence found by evolutionists? From the forums you guys hang out at, I'd say no. So what makes evidence you find only suitable to be used for one idea only?

34696[/snapback]

I've told you before ike, I don't hang out in any other forums. I've casually visited one or two others, but this is the only one I'm signed up to.

 

As to the question, of course you can use the same data, and there's no reason why you should have to come to the same conclusions. I've just noticed a tendency to not understand the data, and therefore draw incorrect conclusions.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, you mean a chimp is closer to me than my brother? This is just to laughable. Thanks for that link.

 

I'd trust this source better: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060301_crime

 

Also, I made a mistake in the math. It's 3 million in .1% not 30 million.

 

I'm not sure you read the article properly. Either that or I misread it. I thought it was saying humans are more different than we originally thought, and that chimps have been pushed back to 12% difference. I was under the impression this would actually help your stance ike. ;)

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you read the article properly. Either that or I misread it. I thought it was saying humans are more different than we originally thought, and that chimps have been pushed back to 12% difference. I was under the impression this would actually help your stance ike. ;)

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

34700[/snapback]

I"m sure whom ever wrote it will get refuted and destroyed if the article makes to many waves. I did not read the whole thing, I was laughing to hard when I read the: We are ten times more different between one another. So I figured the rest stayed the same (99.8%). That is why I said that. I really don't see evolutionists giving up the 99.8% without a huge fight, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I"m sure whom ever wrote it will get refuted and destroyed if the article makes to many waves. I did not read the whole thing, I was laughing to hard when I read the: We are ten times more different between one another. So I figured the rest stayed the same (99.8%). That is why I said that. I really don't see evolutionists giving up the 99.8% without a huge fight, do you?

34701[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.springerlink.com/content/tvx0013g77u51v37/

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?

 

post-44-1247033212_thumb.jpgpost-44-1247033177_thumb.jpg

post-44-1247033331_thumb.jpg

 

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.

34691[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34703[/snapback]

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

34706[/snapback]

;)

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34671[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34711[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is one chance in a google... 

34686[/snapback]

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. 

34686[/snapback]

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. 

34686[/snapback]

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? 

34686[/snapback]

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. 

34686[/snapback]

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. 

34686[/snapback]

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? 

34686[/snapback]

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? 

34686[/snapback]

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? 

34686[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34686[/snapback]

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?

34686[/snapback]

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.

34686[/snapback]

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?

34686[/snapback]

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.

34686[/snapback]

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?

34686[/snapback]

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.

34686[/snapback]

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?

34686[/snapback]

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?

34686[/snapback]

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.

34686[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

34686[/snapback]

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.

34686[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms