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

If Evolution Is True...

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith C

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in science is a "true absolute fact." 

34718[/snapback]

Is that a "true absolute fact"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'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.

post-44-1247219524_thumb.jpg

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.

34944[/snapback]

Lightening creates molecules as well.

 

post-44-1247219760_thumb.jpg

 

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.

 

post-44-1247033212_thumb.jpg

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34965[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

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.

34965[/snapback]

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.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...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. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

34981[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...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. "

34981[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

34949[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

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.

35060[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

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? :lol:

 

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

34982[/snapback]

How about proving that my comment was unjustified by outlining what you know of the various anaerobic metabolisms and what chemicals would be toxic to them. Experience with oxygen-based life is not a real qualification.

 

For oxygen-based respiration, CO2 is toxic because CO2 has to be removed from hemoglobin before oxygen can by bound.

 

CO is particularly toxic because it binds more strongly to hemoglobin than does oxygen.

 

SO2 and SO3 are toxic because of their effect on the lungs, I think.

 

Real science is based on finding out the important and relevant facts, by literature search first, and then by experimentation if necessary and practical. There is no scientific merit in wild speculation without at least some supporting facts.

What for example, are the facts you know about life which support your position?

 

Are there any point from your 'toxin' post which you want to discuss further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no scientific merit in wild speculation without at least some supporting facts.

35069[/snapback]

Tell that to Darwin.

 

What for example, are the facts you know about life which support your position?

35069[/snapback]

The Law of Biogenesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Simple implies stupidity. So how far out of date would you say the average text book is anyway? 50-100 years? Do you think they have caught up to the space shuttle yet? Do you think Lucy has be printed up yet?

 

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.

Two states out of 50? Seems to me evolution has the upper hand. But I guess any ground is a threat where God is concerned.

 

How about posting your entire presentation to your mens group here?

Have you checked and verified the numbers I suggested?

35065[/snapback]

Because of the small scale groups, I doubt it will be recorded. But once it gets done, they will probably want it done before the whole church. And they have professional TV cameras in there. I'll just have to wait and see what happens. It's all talk right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple implies stupidity.

35087[/snapback]

No, simplicity implies a learning path. There's no point trying to teach people algebraic formulas before they can do basic multiplication. Similar comparisons can be drawn in any field.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, simplicity implies a learning path. There's no point trying to teach people algebraic formulas before they can do basic multiplication. Similar comparisons can be drawn in any field.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

35089[/snapback]

Is doing percentages in college? I leanred that in Jr. highschool.

 

Also, would you say that sr. highschool needs simple math, and therefore should not have complex percentages about DNA?

 

In fact, what kind of math do you think they teach in Sr. highschool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'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.

34944[/snapback]

Do you have any experimental evidence to support your position?Most anaerobic bacteria have genes for oxygen as well.Gene expression through adaption is predicted by Creationists.Can you demonstrate it occuring without loss of genetic information or horizontal gene transfer.

 

We would need to see these genes not present in the parent colony and then see them aquired through random mutation.

 

Facultatively anaerobic bacteria are able to adapt to many different growth conditions. Their capability to change their metabolism optimally is often ensured by FNR-like proteins. The FNR protein ofEscherichia coli functions as the main regulator during the aerobic-to-anaerobic switch. Low oxygen tensions activate this protein which is expressed constitutively and is inactive under aerobic conditions. The active form is dimeric and contains a [4Fe−4S]2+ cluster. The direct dissociation of the cluster to the [2Fe−2S]2+ cluster by the effect of oxygen leads to destabilization of the FNR dimer and to loss of its activity. The active FNR induces the expression of many anaerobic genes; the set comprises over 100 of controlled genes. Many other bacteria contain one or more FNR analogues. All these proteins form the FNR family of regulatory proteins. Properties of these proteins are very distinct, sometimes even among representatives of different strains of the same bacterial species. FNR-like proteins together with other regulators (e.g., two-component system ArcBA, nitrate-sensing system NarXL,etc.) control a complicated network of modulons that is characteristic for every species or even strain and enables fine tuning of gene expression.

http://www.springerlink.com/index/4L32317W435U0742.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is doing percentages in college? I leanred that in Jr. highschool.

 

Also, would you say that sr. highschool needs simple math, and therefore should not have complex percentages about DNA?

 

In fact, what kind of math do you think they teach in Sr. highschool?

35190[/snapback]

I was using algebra as a comparison. We're talking about ToE, not what maths to teach in high schools.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using algebra as a comparison. We're talking about ToE, not what maths to teach in high schools.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

35216[/snapback]

Ah, you get it, you are just equivocating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

In reply to ;-

There is no scientific merit in wild speculation without at least some supporting facts.

 

all Adam has to offer:-

Tell that to Darwin.

I think Darwin typically has more supporting facts on each page than in this entire website, since most of the 'facts' in the videos seem to be misleading.

 

On why abiogenesis is not possible:-

The Law of Biogenesis.

35071[/snapback]

If you think Pasteur's experiments have established a universal law then you have not

investigated the matter very deeply.

Oxygen was present in all Pasteur's experiments, and there was no energy source to provide a way to drive reaction away from chemical equilibrium after the broth cooled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

Two states out of 50? Seems to me evolution has the upper hand. But I guess any ground is a threat where God is concerned.

 

"Public school textbooks are big business in Texas. Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks behind California. Texas also employs an extensive review process which involves input from the public. Independent school districts in the state of Texas can purchase whatever textbooks they prefer. But if they want state assistance in the purchase of textbooks, they'd better pick those texts that are recommended by the State Board of Education.

 

Publishers know that whatever books Texas approves, other states will adopt as well. Therefore the decisions by the Texas State Board of Education regarding textbooks influence what many students across the country will be reading over the next few years. Publishers pay very close attention to what goes on in Texas.

"

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b....y_Textbooks.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

In reply to:-

'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.

Do you have any experimental evidence to support your position?Most anaerobic bacteria have genes for oxygen as well.Gene expression through adaption is predicted by Creationists.Can you demonstrate it occuring without loss of genetic information or horizontal gene transfer.

 

We would need to see these genes not present in the parent colony and then see them aquired through random mutation.

35195[/snapback]

Some organisms, like baker's yeast, are facultative anaerobes and can live either with or without oxygen. This is not true for those strict anaerobic species which have very different metabolisms.

 

Since I am claiming, (and have evidence to support) that these 'exotic' species already exist, the rest of your post is irrelevant.

However, if abiogenesis is eventually achieved, I have no doubt that creationists will have predicted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, you get it, you are just equivocating.

35219[/snapback]

There is a difference between a comparison and equivocating ikester. If you can't see the difference then never to mind. Perhaps the point will be clearer if we return to your original objection, which was that 99.8% could be seen as deceptive because that still accounts for ~6million differences.

 

Have you looked at the other side of that equation? If there are 6 million differences, then there are approximately 2.4 billion similarities. Suddenly that large number of differences looks very small in comparison. To be honest, I think just showing the numbers could be vastly more deceptive than the percentages, especially when you're only advertising one side of the equation.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Pasteur's experiments have established a universal law then you have not investigated the matter very deeply.

35251[/snapback]

Please show all of us the demonstration that overturns it? Consider what is revealed when someone says that their ideas are scientific when they have no scientific data to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Public school textbooks are big business in Texas. Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks behind California. Texas also employs an extensive review process which involves input from the public. Independent school districts in the state of Texas can purchase whatever textbooks they prefer. But if they want state assistance in the purchase of textbooks, they'd better pick those texts that are recommended by the State Board of Education.

 

Publishers know that whatever books Texas approves, other states will adopt as well. Therefore the decisions by the Texas State Board of Education regarding textbooks influence what many students across the country will be reading over the next few years. Publishers pay very close attention to what goes on in Texas. "

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b....y_Textbooks.htm

35252[/snapback]

Should it be the democratic freedom of the people, or the evolutionist way? In this case majority view is not working in the evolutionists favor like everything else does. Some pople just cannot stand competition when total control is what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between a comparison and equivocating ikester. If you can't see the difference then never to mind. Perhaps the point will be clearer if we return to your original objection, which was that 99.8% could be seen as deceptive because that still accounts for ~6million differences.

 

Have you looked at the other side of that equation? If there are 6 million differences, then there are approximately 2.4 billion similarities. Suddenly that large number of differences looks very small in comparison. To be honest, I think just showing the numbers could be vastly more deceptive than the percentages, especially when you're only advertising one side of the equation.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

35257[/snapback]

So that justifies hiding the real number from the masses?

Share this post


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

×

Important Information

Our Terms