Comment How many people here on slashdot (Score -1) 102
see there own passwords in the list?
* guilty
see there own passwords in the list?
* guilty
We all know that distance galaxies are red shifted, but how many of you know they are quantization of the red shifts.
This means that the galaxies are placed at regular intervals of 2Myr in distance. That pattern can only been seen if we were at the center of the universe. If you move earth to 2Myrs in either direction then the pattern is not visible.
So the pattern suggest that Earth is in a unique position in a boundary based universe.
(Big Bang doesn't have boundarys due it a 3d surface on the 4d hypersphere, but I know someone will disagree with on me on that)
But the ultimate answer of "Is the earth special" is Yes, because it has me. (drum sounds
(thank you folks, I'll be here all day long)
I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god.
Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)
But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.
I think you might be trying to refer to Occam's razor, where the theory requiring the least amount of assumptions is the preferred theory.
And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.
Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution.
To the argument of who created God, I believe is not a question which makes sense as you are asserting in the question a messurment of time into someone which exists outside of time. (E.g. if time was a 2D plane instead of viewed as a 1D line of past/present/future how you say how old you were?), hence by asking an entity which exists outside of time how old he is, how would you answer that?
Lets look at the theory of cause and effect. A "effect" has a cause. Hence the universe existence would have a "cause" (unless you are prescribing the steady state model). The "cause" can not have been made from any physical / energy source because you are then relying on something's own existence to explain how it came to being. Which violates the no creation of energy law of the universe.
Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again)
The "theory" which requires less assumptions is creation of a universe by an (super) intelligent being. The theory of the big bang requires many adhoc assumptions to explain each stage the BB when though. Occam's razor would favor a creationist.
(Read the book Dismantling the big bang for more details in that.)
I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.
This is where the argument of where you would say "it doesn't exist anymore" would come in.
Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators.
Are you referring to crystal like structures or a fully blown dna reading machine?
Having a crystal like structure doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. Although these structures show highly ordered arrangements, but all they ever be are structures align to there chemical nature.
The simplest self replicating thing I've read about is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again. This needs many human interferences for it to be self replicating. E.g. the right sollution, and heating cycle. Again this artificial thing couldn't become more complex due it's shape being linked to it's chemical properties.
The replication from organic things comes from it's dna chain which it's assembly it not related to it chemical properties. For example the sentence: "To be or not to be", does not make any sense, all it is, is a collection of symbols stringed together, the shape of the letters give not relevance to the next symbol in the sentence nor to its ultimate meaning. It's only when a decoder it used (English) can we understand the sentence and get information out of it.
Hence the "simple" replication structure you are thinking of would be a crystal structure which can have order but not information, all they will ever be is crystal like in structure.
Lipids can naturally and spontaneously form cell like enclosures all on their own.
Ok, I believe you on this, (I am ignorant on whats Lipids are, short of a 1 minute read on Wikipedia) this is easily testable. (put Lipids together and see them clump together).
The organelles that we see inside the current cell could have been separate entities.
This statement is based on an assumption, you will need to show how functional sub structures can be created and then placed in the correct order and then the code written in the dna chain. This is a bit like the RNA version of evolution where RNA came before DNA. they all suffer from chicken & egg problem in different ways.
There is a huge order of magnitude between any crystal like structure and the nano machines of the "simplest" bacteria.
We see examples of this kind of symbiosis in our natural world, where one creature has taken up a residence inside another and provides benefits to the host.
This sentence is a bad example of using something which at the macro level to describe at the micro level which is/(was?) already self sustaining but now can(must?) use a parasite to provide the functionality. It would of been something which already worked and self replication. The lipid enclosed structure might be self organizing but it will not be self replicating. E.g. Virus,
Originally it most likely worked like a colony using the lipids as substrate to build on and for protection rather than replicating the wall of the cell itself.
Again assumptions here is that only the thing which makes the self replicating structure and the lipids are present in the chemical soup.
Please tell me what this self replicating structure or group of structures are?
If it was a group of independent structures, that would make it even more amazing.
The nucleus, and other internal cell structures and things like viruses are coated with a lipid membrane lending credence to this idea.
I understand the point you raise here, But here is a problem to help demonstrate the complexity jump from highly ordered (even simple artificial self replicating) systems to fully functioning software (DNA) driven machines running factories for assembling it's own parts. How does a crystal like structure produce it's own cell wall? This is many order of magnitudes more complex between these "systems".
Viruses require living cells to replicate by tricking the cell wall to get access, then injected it's source code into the nucleus to be processed by the RNA factory to pump out more viruses. Without the RNA factories within the cell you can not replicate the virus. The virus being much more complicated that any highly orded crystal structure, this would not give credence to your idea of a simple self replicate which is missing all it's internal parts can then replicate all these other components.
IMO it's pushing beggars belief that any crystal like structure holding onto/wrapped inside a lipid could somehow recreate not only itself but the lipid it's on without replicating machinery, without error correcting machines which in any living cell would need or it dies, that this "cell" can do that despite of all the odd and chemistry and perform this is not the "simple" solution. for over 50yrs chemists have been trying to replicate the cell and they can't.
Your arguments that chemicals naturally move towards a lower state assume that there is no external introduction of energy. But there is a huge external energy source, the sun. This is the same as the argument that the second law of thermodynamics forbids evolution. It fails because the earth is not a closed system.
Maybe I could of explain that better,
from http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
An example of a low state would be if I poured blue ink into a bath tab. At the time I poured it into the bath that was when it was at it's most highly order state (it was all together), but as more time goes by it will continue to be more disorded in the tub and disperse. Applying Light or heat (or electricity i assume) will not make the ink group back together into a corner of the tub. This is the same for living systems, the amino acids will disorder down to an equilibiram with the enviroment, Applying heat/energy into the system will only make the decay faster. It doesn't reverse the process. Heat makes chemical reactions faster, so the open system argument doesn't give credit to the evol idea.
Things didn't just start with dna and rna, we had precursors. Its likely the first replicators were literally just chains of acids.
Ah, so your in the camp that the first cell had self replicating machinery programmed by acid chains? What read the DNA? what assemble/folder the chains into 3d shapes?
Quick google:
The simplest possible cell, according to recent theoretical analysis, would need a bare minimum of 256 genes coding for the required enzymes, which are long polypeptides. And it is doubtful whether such a hypothetical organism could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.
How complex are you willing to argue this chain of acids be?
We know that amino acids even exist in space so they were here already anyway and didn't need to be created.
You do not need to argue that amino acids can not be naturally created (or "deposited" from space because evolutionists love extremely absurd ideas).
The problem is not in there being amino acids about, that is a straw-man argument to the creationist position.
The argument is the information contained in the assembly of the parts which make the whole of the host. All cells are made not just of materials but of information. We all have encoded in us detail instructions telling how the cell to function and the host as a whole to live. These instructions are incredibly complex and speaks volumes that an intelligence designed the (original) system. There are no known processes in nature that can generate information with the exception of intelligence.
"obT e or ont ot eb", That sentence doesn't make sense nor will it ever because there is no decoding of the sequence of the letters to make any sense. So again it is with the acids, you can not just string together acids together and get life.
You need the hardware to start off with to handling the processing of the instructions.
You need the instructions to make sense, putting letters together do not cut it.
You need a protective wall to protect the inner core of the cell
You need a power system to replace the ATP synthase to provide power to the cell. ATP is required for all life. It's the basic of currency for power. http://creation.com/design-in-living-organisms-motors-atp-synthase
You need a code detecting system to check for errors.
You need a code repairing system to repair the error before the cell is completely destroyed.
How many more systems I dont know about required for a functioning self replicating system that wont just be dead?
Let me throw another complication for fun
Mutations are random, they may be good or bad. 99.999% of the time they are gonna be bad, but there has been billions of years of chances.
This is the playing to chance game. Chance can not produce something which can not happen.
read this http://creation.com/cheating-with-chance
If mutations don't cause enhancement then how do you explain bacterial resistance?
This is a common strawman argument, let me turn it around for you to answer after I give this fact.
Mutations can break functional structures. A broken functional structure can provide a beneficial effect to the host. E.g.
* Some people with Meleria are immune because of a broken geane but there children suffer
* Theres a broken wing bug in a windy island off Italy and because it can't fly it doesn't get blown off the island like it's mainland cousins.
* White Humans can drink milk (more than asians) past the age of 3 because a gene is broken.
* the bacteria which can now process citrus acid in an oxygen environment.
I've heard there are over 10,000 known mutations in humans that causes blood diseases, cancers, tumors, liver failures, etc... but only a handful of known mutations which causes beneficial effects, ALL OF THEM involved breaking a working functional structure.
Why are there no observed "evolution" of bacteria gaining information which was not present in the host?
That requires beneficial mutations.
Mutations can be good for the host, but it all observed occurances have not shown evolution, just the oopposite of things breaking down.
Also what about the example of the bacteria we evolved to process citrus by exposing them to an environment full of citrate and low in their natural food source.
Googling show this link about it, it supports my earlier statement of devolution being good to the host.
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations) .
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial
in fact a whole list of items are here http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers for you to read.
basically something changing or damaging itself doesn't show evolution.
Things changing is not an argument a creationist make, mutations & NS already explains that
What about how European humans have a mutation that makes them resistant to aids
Please show where the new information is? or is it something that has changed or damaged like usual?
, because of the black death forcing a little bit of evolution on us.
seems like you are talking about natural selection, not evolution. but you would probably say that anything that changes is evolution.
The same resistance to black death happens to also apply to the aids virus.
Natural selection and mutations. (Thoses humans havn't gain a new chemical signaling process, or a new type of kidney organ, it would be a change in the sturture of what ever the aids attacks, too lazy to look it up at the moment..)
Without evolution there is no mechanism to explain this,
Natural Selection and mutations explains all that above there.
Evolution is not observed unless there is new information being specified. Has a new organ appeared? A new chemical signaling system appear? no.
I defined evolution as "Goo to You via the Zoo" (increase in information), not "Anything changes" (things change and mutate).
or genetic diseases for example. How do you explain hereditary characteristics without passing information from previous generation to offspring.
Basic genetics. As shown in tests for over 400 years. That is basic observation science. proven & tested. We rely on science to make the point that evolution is not observed.
If you accept that as fact, then your already doing evolution,
I disagree, evolution is trying to take the credit for mutations and natural selection and then magically adding to it to produce the goo to you via the zoo.
all that's missing is the random mutations.
You talk about selling me the bits of the car dissembled. But this is assuming the first cell is a current modern cell. It certainly was not. It can be vastly more simple.
How simple is it, It will still need to obey the laws of physics. DNA is very easily destroyed. We all have machines constantly repairing them. The simplist known cell is vastly complex at 512 genes with a theorical cell of 256 genes is basically too weak to survive and need life support.
You say evolution is a religion in itself, which depending on how you are taking the statement could be considered true. Scientists such as myself do tend to "believe" things that we can't see, but are valid and logical extrapolations.
Please be aware of the assumptions before you claim something is "logical". The possibly of the simplist life is astronomical!.
Even non-creationists (e.g. the mathematician and cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle) put the probability for the formation of the most basic of cells by natural processes at (at best) 1 in 10^40,000 - that’s a number one with 40,000 zeros after it! Even this assumes all the ingredients are present, which is impossible!
However the major difference is, if you produce some clear evidence that evolution doesn't exist, scientists will change their minds straight away.
Lol, read the Q and A of creation.com, read up and you will find out that that wont happen.
Your examples of scientists getting things wrong such as junk dna and vestigial organs are great examples of where scientists were wrong but corrected themselves.
Of course the evolution theory still remains intact.
If you could show me true evidence against evolution id change my mind in a second. A really advanced creature appearing in the fossil record at the time of vastly more primitive life would be a great one. But we never see anything like that.
The problem when it comes to pointing out such an record is that the record is then rewritten to match what is found. An example:
On Vancouver Island, just off the west coast of Canada, in the late 1990s, a paleontologist found a sponge, which he called Nucha vancouverensis, claiming it was a new species.4,5 It was buried in rocks classified on the geologic column as Upper Triassic, which are supposedly some 220 million years old. Surprisingly, this sponge is virtually identical to one previously found in western New South Wales, Australia, named Nucha naucum, from Middle Cambrian rocks, supposedly 520 million years old.6 But why wasn’t it found in any strata from those 300 million intervening years? The Nucha from Vancouver has greatly extended the range for this particular fossil upward in the geological column
Another example is the discovery of a fossilized cells in north-west Scotland has forced a dramatic rewrite of the supposed evolutionary history of life on Earth. Thats because the fossil were said to have lived in fresh water lakes and were 'dated' as being one billion years old. That is in stark contrast to previous claims that life didn't begin it's landward migration from it's evolutionary starting point in the oceans until half a billion years ago. See: Earth's earliest non-marine eukayotes, Nature 473(7348):505-509, 2011
Another:By analyzing rocks for organic molecules, researchers have said that eukaryote cells (containing a nucleus and other complex structures) originated 2.7 billion years ago in the Upper Archean, in the Precambrian.14,15 That’s one billion years earlier than previously thought. This raises the question, “Where are the remains of all the billions of organisms with eukaryote cells that lived between 2.7 billion years ago and the time of the Cambrian Big Bang?”
14,15 is Brocks, J., Logan, G., Buick, R. and Summons, R., Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes, Science 285(5430):1033–1036, 1999
Of course i could try to show other examples but I am not placing creatures in a evolutionary time scale. No matter what is found the story is changed to meet the facts.
Now lets talk about living fossils, fossils of creatures that have died "millions" of years ago which are exactly the same as current creatures. e.g. ostracode crustacean (prawns, 450,000,000 without any changes, Coelacanth (believed extinct for 65,000,000 years until discovered in 1938 when it was fished up.)
Now I assume you are under the impression that fossilization take "millions" of years do you, So I take my hat off to you for believing that.
Since we dont have living dinosaurs walking about (if you dont count tuataras back in my home country NZ), would you take a fossil of a T Rex (in Montana,US) that is not minerilsed with red blood cells and stretchy blood veins as evidence against the evolution pragram. The c14 dates show an age of 35,000yr, (I could argue about the dating game later if you want), which clearly shows dinosaurs did not die out 65Myrs ago. In fact if you want pictures of these things in art:
On the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell (1410–1496) at Carlisle Cathedral (UK), brass engravings depict creatures that any 21st century child would innocently identify as well-known sauropod dinosaurs—those with long necks and tails. They appear to be engaged in a fight with their necks (as is also typical of giraffe behaviour) or perhaps courting displays, also familiar within the animal kingdom. See Bishop Bell's brass behemoths!
I have a book containing a picture of an early Mesopotamian cylinder seal and it's image it makes when pressed against clay. it's a picture of 2 long neck dinos wraped around each other.
Heres some text in my book: "The first century naturalist Pliny the Elder recorded that dragons of Ethiopia were often seen 'twisted and interlaced together', *16 = PLiny the Elder, The natural history, translated by Bostock, J., vol II, Book Viii, Chapter 13; www.perseus.tufts.edu
The bible talks several times about "dragons", and describes 2 dinosaurs, one is the behemoth (maybe what we call Brachiosaurus), the other is fire breathing sea dragon called the leviathan.
There is a noble prize out there waiting for the person who can disprove evolution and come up with a better model.
1Million if you can prove abiogeneses http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4163-One-million-dollars-to-prove-life-could-arise-without-God.htm
It's a long standing prize.
The difference is that religious people will preform incredible levels of mental gymnastics of the kind you are preforming to maintain their cognitive dissonance.
I can claim the same for athiests with evolution, just calculate the odd of anything by chance remotly and you find out why I say beggar's belief is required to believe evolution.
I cant fathom how you learned all this stuff, but just jump to magic as the answer when we hit a gap in our knowledge instead of trying to extrapolate a hypothesis.
I try to not claim magic "it evolved by itself". When you look at a car you see that it was intelligently designed, how much so for someone much more complex that a car is. Any car manufacture would love to have the level of techonology required to make a cell. because still to this day a sciencist can not even hope to replicate a cell with artifical means, how will they do it with "natural" means.
Basically I should sum up this post as saying it requires an awesome amount to believe that chemicals can form in the right manner without destorying themselves and them manage to improve themselves despite no observation evidence to show this can happen.
Instead I take the view of a eye witness account from the creator of the cell in the first place, instead of manufacturing details out of thin air, but I will try to use current science to see how it was done and changes over time. But I will always view "science" as man's limited attempt to try to understand everything and not be taken as truth, because you see how I can point to the flaws in evolution over and over, I just dont blindly believe anything thrown at me.
If you want to hear about the dating game, like how do you get billions of years when the earth is ~6000 years old(* according to the bible) then I can give you some information regarding the failures of radioisotope dating in action. Using events that happen in recorded history 30yrs ago, 60 years ago & 200 years ago (events in New Zealand, and US).
But basically this is where we disagree, I take a scientific approach to history and I dont fall into the lies that evolution requires us to take. I hope I entertained you in learning what a creationist views are and how we see the world and the evidence (I wanted to talk about radioisotape dating, hint hint). If you can point to any mistakes I made in the post, then please let me know.
(I love saying this)
Best regards and God bless you.
I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god.
Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)
But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.
Well thats not necessarily a correct methodology, but I am just being a bit pedantic.
And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.
Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution.
To the argument of who created God:
As a basic formula of cause and effect, (cause leads to effect), for the universe to exist it must have a cause. Trying to invoke a physical force, e.g. energy or any type of matter will not do for what then created that?. For the universe to be created you will need something/(someone) to be the cause for the effect. An example of God's not being part of space/time is his ability to tell the future. Only when you are outside the universe (s/t) can you do that. So when it comes to the big bang, the theory leads to strings then to membranes, all of which has no physical evidence and still leads to the question what created the strings/ membranes and all the energy required therein as energy can not be created or destroyed.
Finally as to who created God, I dont know if that question makes sence because you are then trying to apply our time view onto someone who doesn't exist in that time view/space. Hence the question being N/A.
Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again)
I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.
Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators. Having a crystal like sturture doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. The simplest self replicating thing I personally know of is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again.
The replication from organic things comes from it's dna chain which it's assembly it not related to it chemical properties. For example the sentence: "To be or not to be", does not make any sense, all it is, is a collection of symbols stringed together, the shape of the letters give not relevance to the next symbol in the sentence nor to its ultimate meaning. It's only when a decoder it used (English) can we understand the sentence and get information out of it. Hence any "simple" replication structure you are thinking of would be a crystal structure which can have order by not information, all they will ever be is crystal like in structure.
Lipids can naturally and spontaneously form cell like enclosures all on their own.
Ok, I believe you on this, (I am ignorant on whats Lipids are) this would be easily testable. (put Lipids together and see them clump together).
The organelles that we see inside the current cell could have been separate entities.
This statement is based on an assumption, you will need to show how functional sub structures can be created and then placed in the correct order and the code then written in the dna chain. This is a bit like the RNA version of evolution where RNA came before DNA. they all suffer from chicken & egg problem in different ways.
We see examples of this kind of symbiosis in our natural world, where one creature has taken up a residence inside another and provides benefits to the host.
This sentence is a bad example of using something which is/(was?) self sustaining but now can(must?) use a parasite to provide the functionality. It would of been something which already worked and self replication. A lipid enclosed structure requires might be self organising but it will not be self replicating.
Originally it most likely worked like a colony using the lipids as substrate to build on and for protection rather than replicating the wall of the cell itself.
Again assumptions here is that only the thing which makes the self replicating structure and the lipids are present in the chemical soup.
Please tell me what this self replicating structure or group of structures are?
If it was a group of independent structures, that would make it even more amazing.
The nucleus, and other internal cell structures and things like viruses are coated with a lipid membrane lending credence to this idea.
Viruses require living bacteria to replicate by tricking the cell wall to get access, then injected it's source code into the nucleus to be processed by the RNA factory to pump out more viruses. Without the RNA factories within the cell you can not replicate the virus. The virus being much more complicated that any orded crystal structure, would not give creadence to your idea of a simple self replicate which is missing all it's internal parts.
Your arguments that chemicals naturally move towards a lower state assume that there is no external introduction of energy. But there is a huge external energy source, the sun. This is the same as the argument that the second law of thermodynamics forbids evolution. It fails because the earth is not a closed system. Things didn't just start with dna and rna, we had precursors. Its likely the first replicators were literally just chains of acids.
We know that amino acids even exist in space so they were here already anyway and didn't need to be created.
You do not need to argue that amino acids can not be naturally created. (or even need to claim acids from comics etc..) The problem is not in there being amino acids or even whole protiens floating about, thats a strawman argument. The argument is the information contained in the assembly of the parts which make the whole of the host. "obT e or ont ot eb", That sentence doesn't make sense nor will it ever because there is no decoding of the sequence of the letters to make any sense. So again it is with the acids, but the problem here is that even in a pure solution of acids, the chain that will build up will need to be completly right or left handed. When you mix a left and a right the chain terminates. That complication alone makes the chain 50/50 chance in survival to 2 acids long. 3 protiens it's 1/4, with just 64 acids string to together it's 1/18446744073709551616.
There are other considerations like the organisation of the acids to form proteins which actually do the job.
Mutations are random, they may be good or bad. 99.999% of the time they are gonna be bad, but there has been billions of years of chances. If mutations don't cause enhancement then how do you explain bacterial resistance? That requires beneficial mutations. Also what about the example of the bacteria we evolved to process citrus by exposing them to an environment full of citrate and low in their natural food source.
(It's getting late for me so I am getting a bit lazy and drunk and wife is getting angry, so I will paste a couple of hyperlinks instead soon.)
Copy and paste from
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations) .
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial
in fact a whole list of items are here http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers for you to read.
basically something changing or damaging itself doesn't show evolution.
What about how European humans have a mutation that makes them resistant to aids
Please show where the new information is? or is it something that has changed or damaged like usual?
, because of the black death forcing a little bit of evolution on us.
seems like you are talking about natural selection, not evolution. but you would probably say that anything that changes is evolution.
The same resistance to black death happens to also apply to the aids virus.
Natural selection and mutations. (Thoses humans havn't gain a new chemical signaling process, or a new type of kidney organ, it would be a change in the sturture of what ever the aids attacks, too lazy to look it up at the moment..)
Without evolution there is no mechanism to explain this,
Natural Selection and mutations again. They are proven facts. evolution isn't.
or genetic diseases for example. How do you explain hereditary characteristics without passing information from previous generation to offspring.
Basic genetics. shown in tests for over 400 years.
If you accept that as fact, then your already doing evolution,
I disagree, evolution is trying to take the credit for mtuations and natural selection and then magically adding to it to produce the goo to you via the zoo. I will talk more on this in the morning (or you could read my history, I have a habbit of talking about that alot.) basically NS & Mutations work agaist evolution.
all that's missing is the random mutations.
You talk about selling me the bits of the car dissembled. But this is assuming the first cell is a current modern cell. It certainly was not. It can be vastly more simple.
How simple is it, It will still need to obey the laws of physics. DNA is very easily destroyied. We all have machines constantly repAIRING them.
You say evolution is a religion in itself, which depending on how you are taking the statement could be considered true. Scientists such as myself do tend to "believe" things that we can't see, but are valid and logical extrapolations.
Please be aware of the assumptions that you make when comming to your conclusions
However the major difference is, if you produce some clear evidence that evolution doesn't exist, scientists will change their minds straight away. Your examples of scientists getting things wrong such as junk dna and vestigial organs are great examples of where scientists were wrong but corrected themselves. If you could show me true evidence against evolution id change my mind in a second. A really advanced creature appearing in the fossil record at the time of vastly more primitive life would be a great one. But we never see anything like that. There is a noble prize out there waiting for the person who can disprove evolution and come up with a better model. The difference is that religious people will preform incredible levels of mental gymnastics of the kind you are preforming to maintain their cognitive dissonance. I cant fathom how you learned all this stuff, but just jump to magic as the answer when we hit a gap in our knowledge instead of trying to extrapolate a hypothesis.
I know the feeling.
The first cell wasn't produced by randomness, that's clearly impossible, it's an incremental process. You've fallen into the usual creationists argument that cells sprang forth from nothing.
Excuse me but you just contradicted yourself. We all know abio can't happen, and waving a magic wand saying it was chunks of proteins instead of single amino acids where used to make the "first" cell is highly dishonest. Your argument there is saying cars dont form by themselves atom by atom, it's all the interconnected parts that form together to make a car. You are still left with the position of explaining in your version of abio of how all the components form into anything that could self replicate yet alone how all thoses required components could form at all. You require a lot of faith to make that claim which lacks evidence for. You've fallen for a common athest argument that the first cell was a simple thing, yet not knowing how incredibly complex the simplest of cells are. There is no incremental process for something which are self replicate.
The other mistake in your argument is that something can "evol" into gaining features which are not there. This goes against chemical & biological science.
Chemical Sciences: any solution will break down into it's low state where everything is mixed. If you looked at the mulla gray experiments, you will see that although proteins/acids are created, they are created in a toxic environment, there is no chance for any of the proteins to form chains. There are no RNA machines to process the DNA either. This has been 50/60 years now and the more complex you get the more it shows that life only comes from life, not from chemicals.
DNA is highly reactive and easily breaks down.
Biological Sciences: Every day there are over 1 million mutations happening in each of your cell's DNA strains. The first cell must have all the machinery already set up to handle all the damage from the beginning. (even more so since you can't invoke a cell wall yet) Mutations do not cause an increase in complexity, Every occurrence observed has shown either no visible effect or harmful effect*
* over 10000 mutations shown in the human body which causes cancers/liver failures/brain tumours etc... with a handful of mutations which destroy functionally which can have an advantage. (e.g. whites can drink milk)
If you study a cell there's clearly lots of different bits joined together that could easily have been separate pieces.
Can I sell you a car, it's all dissemble but it got all the components of a car. You will need to explain how those components all assemble themselves in the correct order encoded in the dna strain with all the machinery able to decode it alongside all the protection machines and power supply machines for it to be functional. Remember, if you connect a piston to a crankshalf, you still do not have a car! (or anything that moves).
And please don't refer to anything to do with creationism as science. If you take the bible literally, you are an enemy of science.
And please dont refer to anything to do with evolution as science, it's demonstrated to not work. all biological phenomenons do not require that unscientific theory.
I take observation evidence in the bible literary, instead of you who would rather believe in the miracles of evolution despite all observation science telling otherwise.
Religion is just a method created by the brain to deal with the fact that humans are aware of their own mortality. Weak people who can't deal with this fact hide behind religion.
Shooting the messenger? let me take another view of this:
Evolution is just a method created by the brain to deal with the fact that humans are aware of their own mortality and do not want to be accountable for their actions from their maker.
Leaders realised this fact and used religion to control the masses.
True.
You seem to be intelligent and well spoken and I hope you'll break your cognitive dissonance some day.
I hope I have raised some counter points that you can reflect on.
Summery:
- Having proteins in a soup can not create a self replicating cell.
- For any "evolution" to happen, you need a fully self replicating cell.
- chemical environments are always hostile to life. (water/air/ even protiens themselves) all destroy anything from building up.
- biological systems need a whole range of systems in place before self replication is possible.
- evolution (goo to you via zoo type) is not observed, it is assumed.
To counter this argument, you will need to find a way where many different system (acids or even fully functioning proteins) can all interact with each other without a hostile environment, then encode all necessary equipment/machinery into the dna while being process by error detecting and separate error correcting machines being feed into a RNA protein synising factory while being supplied by proton powered power generators. And that's just the tip of the ice burg in complexity for the "simple" cell.
I hope I have shown to you that evolution is a religion in itself. It requires "faith" for the unseen processes which is against observed, repeatable science.
And as for "enemy" of science, evolution hold back science by:
Vestigial organs. In 1926, there were 189 vestigial organs. (Organs that were not used due to it being evolutionary trash, like tossles and appendix ) In 2000, all organs and known to have a function. The believe in evolution held back the research into these parts of your body.
Junk DNA. ever heard 95% of your dna is junk? Again that was a believe because of evolution. It has now be shown that the 98% of non protien encoding dna actively works. As the head of the human gnome project say when he retired that Junk DNA was the greatest mistake in biology.
Also evolution takes funding away from other real sciences.
If you are interested debating more, all you need is to ask me a question
Cheers
Obble.
Hello Anonymous,
I am a creationist, (I am not liked if you look at my karma). I have a few comments about your post.
First: Randomness can not generate the first cell (abiogenesis) . Even the hypothetical of 256 genes using the probability of left vs right handed proteins makes the changes of that "prefect" cell (which is actually too weak to survive) have the odds of 10^3070. The chemical assembly of the cell is not linked to the chemical properties of the cell. Evolution has the issues with science. (I've talked about mutations & natural selection is my history)
Third: Genesis 1 & 2 are to be read literally. Genesis reads with specific ordering. It is not a poem, It is not a allegory, it's not a parable. It is written as a observation recording of what happen. It is therefore to be read as history. But lets use scripture to check this out. Genesis 1 uses ordeal numbers with it days. Day One Day Twom Day three. The only other part in the bible that matches it's structure is in numbers ch 17, where it talked about day one, day two day three where it was talking about some jewish thing I can't remember. That is read has fact/history and not as a poem, so dont try to pick and choose what you want to believe.
How do the people in the bible thought about Gen 1?
In exodus, in the 10 commandments, Rememberer the 7th day to keep it holy.. (It's referencing to a literal 24 hour day, not periods like muslems, not billion of years like evolutionists.
Jesus say if you don't believe Moses then you wouldn't believe me (Moses written the tora (first 5 books of bible) to my memory)
To others reading this post:
If any one has issues thinking there is a "religion" vs "science" instead of
"creation world view" vs "evolution world view"
"creation science" vs "evolution science"
may I suggest http://creation.com/ and read up on what is fact and what is story telling, instead of just blindly trying to bash reglious groups (even the wrong muslims) because you think there are wrong. When you hear only one side of the story you will think that is correct until the other side gets a chance to speak.
Cheers
(and err, God bless
I define the definitions so that we all speak the same language. If you asked me did I believe that creatures changed i would say yes. But you will take that as yes to evolution.
A clear definition is required because at the moment evolution is thought of as "things changing". But this concept of what evolution is, is so broad that it will make me an evolutionist.
Heres the problem, Evolution takes the best of natural selection and mutations into itself and claim it has it's own. I.e. you see fenches in the geloipus islands with there difference beaks so evolution is true. So most people dont see is that evolution takes a truth (NS & Mutations) and then mixes in a lie of pure fantasy. It's a bait and switch.
Hence be defining what evolution is, which is separate from it's underlying theories, i hope to show to you the fallacy of it while maintining true "operational" science. Basically sperating the myths and lies from the truth.
So hence for the purpose to facilitate this conversation, I define evolution as which you can understand which is what it is being allocated as doing without it steal away from real theories.
So I dont mean to be rude but speak my language please. because your beliefs are in a theory that claims alot and uses deceit to pull of the magic of it and until we understand each others point view clearly, we would just get no where.
I am a creationist. We know mutations happen. To you will need to prove that mutations are good. I purpose you walk into the fukushima plant and just stand there for 30 mins. Once you turn green when ever you get anger, you will have proved me wrong.
But if you get sick from liver failures, and pass on cancers to your childern's childrens children, then I will be proven right.
The problem with mutations is that they cause damage to a working function. There are 10,000 known mutations that causes cancers, tumours, and blood diseces, and only a hand full of mutations that are beneficial (all of them breaking a working function which doesn't show evolution).
If you want to believe in evolution, please know the facts before blindly believing in the impossible and then making fun of people of different views than yours.
Natural Selection (and maybe mutations) are the main methods for new species.
(Definitions: Species: are creatures who dont bread with each other
Kind: Not sure how to describe it, basically how you classify something to a 8yr old, (dog, fish, horse) )
These fish are the same "Kind", Fish, theses are still the same "Species".
A "Kind" contains lots of variations within itself (DNA) where the creature can be fine tune to the enviroment. That process called natural selection.
An example of this is Dogs and Wolfs. Chiwawas and great danes come of wolfs. The Wolf had the information for all these species within the K9 "Kind" The Chiawawas and great danes are different species but they are all dogs, but the Chiawawa & GD are more specified than the wolf meaning you can't get the wolf from the chiawawa, but you can get the chiawawa from the wolf. So a more specified (selected) creature doesn't show evolution, as it shows a decrease in the variation of the host. It is not evolved because it has less variations (hence harder to adapt to new enviroments) than the parent kind.
In the fish, the Mutated fish grow slower and is only found near the hudson where it's mutation gives a better advantage than the flaws it brings. Each is better suited to its enviroment. But having something broken is not a sign a evolution. evolution (Goo to you via zoo) needs increases in structures and features, not things breaking.
Lets do a car analogy, I took a brick, though it in your car window, it is now smashed up so you can't see, you will now have to drive slower and so you now dont skid as much. this only works in snowy (PCB) areas but it shows your car has evolved by having a smashed up window. I bet you wont thank anyone that tests that out. But this is the BS that gets passed as evolution all the time. Something that breaks doesn't show evolution. Something that changes doesn't show evolution (according to how lazy you define evolution). Only new features could explain Evolution which this case doesn't show. PCB resistances via broken genes I argue isn't a "new feature", but a smashed window.
Things we agree on?
Each fish are better suited to it's environment.
things we dont agree on:
These mutations dont show evolution (things breaking dont show "Goo to you via zoo" evolution)
The hudson fish are "weaker" because they can't survive in the wild (as good as others)
Evolution causes "specification/speciation". The theory of Evol is not needed for speciation. NS & Mutations do that already.
So my remark stands that claiming that a gene broken is "evolution" (goo to you type) is bad science.
(Please dont try to argue that simply changing is evolution, as no creationist argues that creatures change. Natural Selection & Mutations are real science that can be observed in the lab and repeated, for ~400 years. The "goo to you via zoo" version of "evolution" is not observable and makes no predictions. See the great dawkins being stump when ask what causes evolution (play the video) http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again )
What bad science. This is just another article pushing evolution as the theory of how everything works.
I read about these fish about a 2 weeks ago, Here a link to a online version if you want to read it. http://creation.com/rapid-tomcod-evolution
Basically the fish are an example of mutations and natural selection. The damage genes in the fish make it better suited to it's environment but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish. But you dont get published without towing the line of Evolution.
Notice how the mutations are limited to the Hudson area. The fish are less fit than the wild fish in the oceans.
(I define evolution as change going up hill, or as to quote a catch parse, "goo to you via zoo". I do not defined it as "things changes", as Natural Selection & Mutations cover that area already.)
Of course I will be modded down as always, I just thought that a different view should be presented, take it or leave it, its up to you.
Your views: I am an animal and to all purposes a "monkey". There is nothing wrong in killing a monkey or pig, enslaving horses and sheep, or fellow humans.
And how does evolution reach that conclusion?
It teaches it by saying survival of the fittest. if an animal can kill another animal, and we are only animal then logically there is nothing wrong in it.
My view is that when evolution has been misused as a rationalization for murder and genocide, the abuser has in additional made the claim that they are somehow better than the other class of humans.
It's very easy to "misuse" evolution as it's logical conclusion is just that view point. Charles thought niggers were more like apes, and whites where more evolved than blacks. This is why evol isn't an inert idea. It is the building block of your entire world view. Who are you, what you are worth, what you can do to others. It wasn't until operational science of DNA proved otherwise.
There is an exceptionalism that allows them to rationalize the murder of those they wish while simultaneously preserving their own status among the living.
Yeah, it's an easy jump depending on your world view.
Even the Israelis have in the Bible misused their perceived status as special people of God to kill rival peoples.
I assumed you are talking about when the Jews crossed over to Israel. I am a bit weak in the theory of this area but to what I can recall about this history is that land was reserved for the Jews. Satan knowing that the "Christ" was promised to come from the line of Abraham (Jews) setup several populations in the area. Note that when the Moses told 12 jew to cross the river and check out the land, 2 reported it was ripe for the taking, 10 reported that there were giants in the land. The nephilim where around before the flood, they were gaints (about 1.5 story house) and they where the cross breed between a angle (fallen angel) and a woman. The flood killed all the Nephilims. The giants in the land was just another attempt to thawt God's plan. Hence God said to kill theses people as they were the mortal enemies of the jews.
Now when the Jews where taking city and after city the neighbours took noticed of theses Jews taking all the citys to the south so this one city send 3 officials to go out and talk to the Jews and make a deal with them. The jews came across these 3 people saying they where from a far away city far up north, they where walking for many days to get here and so they offered a peice deal with the jews. The leader thought that this city was too far away (weeks away) so they made a piece tearty with them. The Jews then found the city was just over the hill!. lol, they were tricked but God would keep there promised so that city was speared.
Many generations later, a king of israel when and kill some of the men of that city. That caused a 7yr drought on the land, the jews asked, etf why is there a drought, God said your king killed some of these people. The end result of the king's own sons being put to death and left rotting on the hill side.
Abio can't explain anything. the more it tries the more you relieased Life only comes from life. The more real you get, the impossible it becomes. hence an evolutionist needs faith that this happen because they know it's impossible. Go ahead, look at the chemistry experaments, They can now produce, in only 12 steps each being carefully filtered, 2 types of amino acids for RNA. (what a joke.)
I find it interesting that you claim that God cannot create life via the mechanism of abiogenesis. Perhaps you ought to tell him more of what he can or cannot do.
You dont at all find it odd that you try to use a theory that doesn't use God at all? And the only reason to include God is because it's chemically and phyiscally / statistically impossible for it to happen. Perhaps you should listen to him explain how he started life fully formed and functional from the begining. I.e., Adam having 2 eyes, 2 hears, 1 heart, etc... As you like to make things (I assume) wouldn't God make something a little more complex than goo then left it hanging around?. He would be smart enought to create nano scaled factoies that can self assemble, fellowing a computer program design to replicate after it's own kind. Software so advanced it can generate nanobots to check it's own code, and create other nano bots to repair it, another nanobot to read it's information which is the universes most effectint storing of data, which is round up on a moter which is reving away at ~7000 rpm with clutch and gears to control it's speed. (Sounds impressive but we barely scratched the surface of how complex the cell is)
So if you were very smart, would you show it off like that?
Your describing phenomenons which operational science has know for 100s of years. you dont need god's will to try to envoke something that will just happen. God establishs the laws of the universe, although hes known in history to interfere with them (miracles), its an error to say it's his will for something to happen. Sometimes shit happens, and thats not God's (willing) will. It would be like saying it's my will that people walk by outside on the street, wither I want too or not, it's still going to happen.
Oh look. Once again you are telling God what he can and cannot do.
God said he did A to show off his stuff. Your saying God did B which doesn't even use/need God at all. I think I will believe what God saids.
You have label evolution as a organizer again. You have failed in each posting to explain how evolution can gain information.
I explained here how evolution can gain information, even to the point of quantifying the extent to which information can be gained from a selection event. You do not get to be right here.
And as I have said these do not work together. If your reffering to the jet/piston engine, you wil need to explain where the Jet parts come from.
If your refering to this p_A/p_B paragraph, you have described natural selection, you will need to explain how B came about. If it's already in the gene pool, then it's not "evolution" just change with the kind. i.e. Natural Selection. For it to show of evolution (in the increasing complexity type) you will need to show how a trait B came about with it's encoding is not in the gene pool which can jump over the problem of it being fully form from the firrst mutation, otherwise it will be selected against. Your example has already pre-included the very information that "evol" was to create. It's would be like me boiling an organge juice just to prove that vitiam C evolved in OJ. the problem is the Vit C is already in the glass. hence boiling it only shows whats already there so nothing as been added.
And God said how he did things, we can try to gain understanding as much as we can but making stuff up is something we christains wont do. hence we believe in the operational sciences showing NS, Mutations, Specializations, but evolution isn't observed, isn't proven, and goes against eye witness accounts of what really happened hence it's rejected.
And when the physical world disagrees with you on how God did things, who should we listen to? A fallible human who wants God to work in certain very limited ways? Or God himself, who has left his signature on every living thing?
lol, I am assuming you are trying to use that paragraph against me. We should take what God has said as the truth and not try to add our own fallible ideas in. I dont take everything the "world" tries to offer because we are fallible and so get things wrong, especially when it contradicts God.
Now why did I lol, just then, because of this quiestion below:
But now, I ask you, what happens when the physical world disagrees with your view that God did it with evolution? e.g. abio doesn't work.
You rewrite what God has said to fit in with your theology of evolution. "God did it!. otherwise it couldn't happen." God dam your worst than the "Christians",
You do not know what weakness is.
Umm, thanks. (But I assume that shouldn't be taken as complement
There are 2 camps, the atheists and creationists, they have oppositie views because one rejects God and one accepts God. If you try to to mix inbetween you will either be a compromised creationist believing that God did something other than what he said he did, made everything to suffer in pain for the hell of it, and basically undermine the thing he claims to believe in the first place.
the athiest if he said God did it, is well, crasy for pampering to creationists and lacking true conviction in his stated beliefs. Or doesn't know how to explain why things are the way they are while still determined to believe something the science rejects. e.g. abio, and how information gotin the cell..
I am using your arguments against yourself.
Maybe I should of explained in more detail why saying God did evolution is a contradiction and therefor is not a strong argument point or world believe system. As the two "thoeries" are mutally exclusive. Just read anything by Dawkins or david attenborough quick youtbue link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeDgH6_zNLE These evolutionists do not want God.
Here's the thing that you don't get. You are a blasphemer. You also bear false witness by telling me how God works, when with simple effort, I can see for myself that God does not work in the way that you say he does. It is a fundamental irreverence to God and his works.
Lol, I never thought I would get told that. God said he did by creating fully function creatures, not bearly working goo. With simple effort, can you not see how NS removes information? with simple effort can you not see mutations as being very very bad? You seem to think they produce working structures when they *never do.
*never == they break things which can be better for the host, but actually creating a new structure is never seen.
So where is this observation of increased information, come on, bateria evols so much, breeding every 20mins, which all the mutations and them becoming resistance to many antibonics, you would think many many evolutionists would declear from the roof tops that evolution is happening there, but they can't because new structures are not being generated. Only changes in the structure (Which is bibical, i.e. They produce after there own kind).
I find it astoundingly arrogant that someone can claim to know the workings of an all powerful, all knowing being yet fail to use their gifts of intelligence and perception to see for themselves how God really works. How about you look for yourself at what God has done and how he works rather than tell me (and God) how he works.
i can't quite get over the laughing, sorry... This is a very weird position to be in. Normally the "bible thumper" would be the one saying to the athists/evolutionist that they were a blasphemer because they dare change the story of how God created things. This is a wierd conversation.
How did I blaspheme? I am the one who says God did it his way. I am not the one saying God did it my way.
Who are you to believe in God? If you believe in evolution, you are a naturalist, i.e. only the physical world exists, there is not supernatural. Do you say there is God? under what grounds do you make that statement?
Now to challenge your point above, I declear the following:
1 - God did it like he said in the Bible. i.e. He created fully functional creatures, i.e. better than modern day creatures because they decayed since the start.
2 - If God is smart, he would create a wonderfully complex thing showing beauty and elegance.
- Spinning moters that spin at 100,000 rpm, can stop and change directions in just a quarter turn and is the "worlds" most efficient engine,
- Self correcting/repairing/overlapping binary computer code.
- Worlds most compact library.
- Structures with magnetic functionality
- Power generators that converts protons (not electrons) and ADT into APT which is the power currency needed by every cell used in many operations.
- Walking Nano robots that literary Walks inside the cell on top roads bringing a sack full of proteins for more building inside.
- A gate locking mechanism to keep out junk and keep in internal machinery. (Viruses get in by keying in the locks where they are then convoyed over with helper bots to in inner core because they thought they were needed stuff. )
these were beyond anyones imagination 50 years agos. and theres shit loads to learn still.
3 - Observations using observed/proven physical phenomenons declare that creatures are wonderfully designed.,
NS & Mutations show things are getting more specified and are getting worst. i.e. they are sliding downhill from an uphill position.
(It's God permissive will that mutations happen. (basically shit happens because the world has been cursed.))
(Theres nothing wrong with NS.)
4 - It's chemically impossible for life to start by itself
It is a fallacy to state God did something just so that your theory can survive? I thought you were suppose to be "scientific" a.k.a naturist.
This is an issue only because evolution demands abio.
This is all established science.
So do you see the hypocrisy where you dont like how I use science to prove how evol can not work, how abio can't happen, yet you still maintain that it's a fact???? Why do you declare that God did abio? Why would he do something which ultimately denies his very handy work? You are forced into that position because you assume as a prior that evolution is correct (somehow against the evidence). this evolution belief steams from a believe that to be scientific you have to be a naturalist which ultimately denies God's very existence.
May I ask you what is the consequences of believing God created Humans fully/whole/ perfectly and then mutations started to add disease to us. without trying to add the unsupported belief in evol into it?
What does the evidence support? magical abio without a God, (abio & evolution is naturalism) evolution without God is a prior. Or genisis, God created a fully functional system in it's entirery without letter mutations drag it down and without letting NS the filter out the whole range of diversity.
What is your world view?
naturism? (only the physical exists)
abio?
evolution-ism - believe that everything self assemble.
it isn't creationism.
Also why couldn't Dawkins answer the interviewer? "Are there any evidence of evolution happening?"
good night
Cheers
Obble.
It's not made out of whole cloth, but based on what we actually see in nature. Further, the theory of evolution doesn't preclude a creator who intentionally uses evolution as their means of biological creation. A "creator line of thinking" is neither required nor rejected.
It is fundamentally opposed to any creator. There is no need for God in evolution.
On matters of physical theory and evidence, you have the possibility of being right. On this matter of logic, you do not. Theories do not have a need for anything, they are merely inert ideas.
On this matter we will just have to agree to disagree. This theory is not an inert idea, it is the basis of the building blocks of your entire world view. this one point will effect how you measure yourself and other people around you.
For example,
Your views: I am an animal and to all purposes a "monkey". There is nothing wrong in killing a monkey or pig, enslaving horses and sheep, or fellow humans. Germans fell for the view the jews where not true humans but less evolved sub humans (just like black people). There is no right or wrong, as they are only chemicals in your brain, there is no logic you can use to say stealing is wrong as you would then be trying to force your morals onto me. hence might is right. You entire existence is a mistake of nature on it's way to something better. (somehow, you still havn't told how yet.)
My views: I am a creature created in the image of God. I have a soul and I am above the animals in the world. I have a purpose (basically to entertain God), and I have a intrinsic value attached to me because I am human. All humans are made in the image of God so everyone has a significants attached to them. I am also flawed and done wrong, but I was also brought and saved from my wrongness with a large price. Hence I know I am deeply valued. I view the world as decaying away, as the evidence with NS & Mutations shows as observed.
Second, this is the sort of nonsense that eventually destroyed Islamic culture as a reasoning culture. They got a 13th century religious nut that decided no theory was valid, if it didn't elevate God to the level of prime mover. For example, Ghazali claimed that all causal events were the result of direct intervention by God. These events only seemed have a pattern because God's will is rational and consistent.
Islam is evil. Please dont try to drag this conversation into that direction unless you read up the history is islam (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ if you really want to know more about it)
But even if the assertion above is completely true, it still doesn't mean that theories explaining how God's will operates to us have to require God or even are capable of requiring God. Ghazali excluded any attempt at physical theory which didn't evoke God, but he never had a good reason for doing so.
But let's rephrase evolution so that it meets your sensibilities.
Ok, lets try
God created the universe and its laws.
Agreed
He also created life on a planet called Earth through some mechanism which is beyond the scope of evolution
He spoke them into existence, Since the universe is a digital simulation, (computer program/ a thought of God maybe?) That would be possible then.
(but not beyond the scope of a theory called "abiogenesis") to explain.
Abio can't explain anything. the more it tries the more you relieased Life only comes from life. The more real you get, the impossible it becomes. hence an evolutionist needs faith that this happen because they know it's impossible. Go ahead, look at the chemistry experaments, They can now produce, in only 12 steps each being carefully filtered, 2 types of amino acids for RNA. (what a joke.)
Once that was done.
(faith again)
, his will moved physical reality so that life evolved, that is.
faith again that God will support a theory that rejects him in the first place. Dont try to pamper to a creationist, either be a 100% evolutionist or 100% creationist, anything in-between just makes you look weak.
, it experienced traits which could and were passed on to descendants via reproduction (inheritance of traits). His will made replication of genes imperfect (mutation)..
Your describing phenomenons which operational science has know for 100s of years. you dont need god's will to try to envoke something that will just happen. God establishs the laws of the universe, although hes known in history to interfere with them (miracles), its an error to say it's his will for something to happen. Sometimes shit happens, and thats not God's (willing) will. It would be like saying it's my will that people walk by outside on the street, wither I want too or not, it's still going to happen.
And his infinite wisdom provided adversity against which life strove and prevailed (selection)..
Not according to the Jedo/christain God. Life has been going down hill ever since the curse. In the past we lived for much much longer.
The three aspects worked together through the laws he set up to be described as "evolution" by primitive intelligences of his making.
And of course in the Christian world, we owe science to our fore fathers who were christains who believed that God created a orderly universe and we were to dominate it.
It's the same theory, we just made it "need" God.
Does that address your concern? Or are you more interested in, oh, telling God how he really did things to think about it?
You have label evolution as a organizer again. You have failed in each posting to explain how evolution can gain information. You keep saying it is some voodoo magic form a series of proven phenomenon that operation science shows, but you havn't explained how. With the car example, how did the jet parts get there? With the signal example how to you overcome the protocol limitations.
And God said how he did things, we can try to gain understanding as much as we can but making stuff up is something we christains wont do. hence we believe in the operational sciences showing NS, Mutations, Specializations, but evolution isn't observed, isn't proven, and goes against eye witness accounts of what really happened hence it's rejected.
So dont try to give me the "gap" theory because it wont work on me. p.s. Can you explain how information is added? As Dawkins can't. NS doesn't do it, Mutations dont do it (not observed anyway, but not impossible, but for all purposes it doesn't.), so tell me how. When you combine them you get NS trying to fight off the mutations trying desperately to keep the spices alive and not sliding down into a genitic drift of bad mutations that build up.
So tell me how without waving a magic wand saying they do it combination?
Gotta go, wife wants me.
Cheers
Obble.
Arghh!!!, all the parts of the engine are involved in the motion of the machine!!!
We were talking about a "process/theory" in the above. Not something real and works
Don't know why you're frustrated. A machine implements a process and one can reverse engineer the process handily given a working machine. So the distinction is not important.
And that's the thing about evolution. We've come to the stage where not only do we have a model with copious evidence, but we've built working programs that implement the basic algorithm of evolution to do useful stuff.
I was frustrated because you just used an analogy of a engine, which has working parts working together to achieve an outcome with something which all parts work against to achieve the outcome.
Building a simulation in a computer which by passes all the flaws in the theory doesn't prove the theory.
With all your "evidence", please give 1, just 1 example of information gain where it produces a working thing. even if its only a 1 stage thing and not a interconnected multistage component like how hemoglobin ( red blood) is a structure with over 1000 protiens in it. which does nothing... until it's calved up by another protiens which leaves ~900protiens in it, then another calves it to 800, then another calves it to ~512 i think. each stage is usless until the end produce is produced. Can you provide me with anything near like what I showed above, we know you can't.
Once again evolution isn't just inherited traits, natural selection, and mutation. It's the combination of these three aspects into something greater than the components.
I guess the expression, pictures or it didn't happen wouldn't change your mind either. Again you have showing faith in a theory without the evidence. I've shown out NS works against evol, and mutations, the only changing agent in town also works vastly against evol, NS is trying hard to not let the creature die. Thats why you get blind fish in dark caves, the moment NS can't filter it, things to to sh*t.
Again you either need to provide evidence of information increase, i.e. how the information got there. or admit you believing by faith that how it works.
As to your comments about "irreducible complexity", I already noted a way to convert an irreducibly complex internal combustion engine into an irreducibly complex jet engine. Rather than incrementally take things away from the engine, I incrementally added things to turn it into a reducibly complex thing. And with enough stuff added, I got to a point where I could reduce the thing either to an internal combustion engine or a jet engine.
Again with that story you will have to tell me why each and every piece of the jet was added to a internal combustion engine while still giving an advantage to the internal combustion engine. I.e. Why hasn't Ford and Toyota, added half a jet engine to each of their lastest cars? It's because it will not proved any advantage until the entire thing is there, and conversely slow and weigh down the car for no reason making and unneeded cost to the production of the car.
So can you answer my question, How do you get evolution from increase information? Or atleast admit you take it by faith that evol is real, which effectively makes it a supernatural explanation and not "real (operational) science".
Oh yes, I can do this. First, let's consider the situation with mutation and no natural selection. The latter implies that every organism, no matter how messed up, managed to pass its traits on to the next generation. End result is going to be perfect noise asymptotically (that is, it approaches perfect noise as the number of generations gets large).
Selection turns that noise into structure and we can even quantify how much information gets created in the process!
That looks nice on paper but in reality you will get cancers and tumors and organ failure in the host. If that was true then you will at least hope to find some kind of structure out there that will show this off, (I am not denning this can't happen, it just not observed anywhere) and the best case observed is structures that are breaking down and giving an advantage that NS couldn't filter.
Hence the following:
1 - no noise has been observed to turned into working structures,
2 - a rare bit of noise (half a dozen cases) has shown beneficial changes by breaking a structure in the host.
3 - MOST 99.9% visible mutations causes major problems for the host.
4 - most mutations are invisible, thus also not being filtered by NS and thus building up to lethal levels in the host. (hence why we often die from cancers)
So above, if evol was working, we would expect to see alot more of 1, (any of 1), 3 & (4 arguably) work directly against evol and are smooth down by NS. 2 is rarly seen, disproves evol and is also smoothed by NS.
For example, suppose there are two mutual exclusive traits in a population, "A" and "B", with every member of the population having one or the other. The respective fractions of the population which are A and B are p_A and p_B. The entropy (or as I referred to it, "noise") contribution from this mix of A and B (there can be far more noise from other sources, we ignore that) is -p_A*log_2(p_A) - p_B*log_2(p_B) bits. The noise can range from 0 bits, for when the population is purely A or B, to 1 bit when the population is exactly half A and half B.
Now suppose there is a selection event which kills off every member who has trait B. In the case where your population is fully trait B, then you just lost the population, but in the cases where you have trait A present in some amount, then you end up with a smaller population that is fully trait A (which as we noted, has zero noise contribution).
The maximum possible reduction in noise occurs when you started with exactly half A and half B. In other words, a selection event which kills off half a population with evolvable traits, can generate up to 1 bit of information in the process. It can also generate much less than 1 bit, if the selection process is at least partly random. Perfectly random selection doesn't generate information at all.
Each additional halving can potentially generate another bit of information. And it adds up. For example, as I understand it, an ejaculation of human sperm consists of roughly half a billion sperm cells (plus or minus). Again as I understand it, roughly 1% of those are considered viable in that they contain the DNA necessary to fertilize an egg. (There is speculation that the rest behaves in a way that could block, inhibit, or even poison rival sperm from other males.)
But only one of those five million or so sperm will actually get through. That's a selection event roughly equivalent to perhaps 22 halvings. So potentially there are 22 bits of information being inserted at this point due to sexual selection.
Sorry, I didn't understood what you wrote there. You are trying to make a statement where if you half the population you will get a more specified gene pool? And then you go on about sperms chances effect the information level. I didn't understood what you were just talking about then, but it sounds like you are also referring to Speciation. Which there is no problem about that. The outcome as like observed in flys could produce a new "species" which doesn't breed with the master race. Thats veryation within a "kind". both flys produces (actually about 254 flys in hiwiwi) are all flies. sorry my wife is annoying me now.
But I fear you dont see my point about how you must have faith for evolution to work as it's own parts work against it. All of biology can be explained without it. Its only purpose is to reject the creator line of thinking which is not unscientific. If something has specified complexity, can't/very unlikely come about naturally, and describes something, is that not a work of intelligent? (to what ever supernatural theory you want to attach to it).
That's incorrect. As I noted several times, evolution depends on three features which are all observed in biological systems
Agreed, NS, Mutations, Specialization/Speciation are all observed in biological system, but where is the evolution then?
Evolution take credit for theses phenomenon which are already described by these other theories?
Evolution then adds that things can gain complexity without any teeth backing it's claim. because if you look how they all interact with each other they dont produce the goods. hence Evol is using true things to produce a lie. Bait and Switch.
, has considerable supporting evidence, and is demonstrated by working computer programs.
Again computer programs dont suffer from the problems of evol. otherwise they wouldn't write it that way.
virtual thingies in software evol because we introduce mutations in it and NS them to a better fit of the problem at hand. Thats a perfect description of evolution, but that doesn't prove it in biological systems. Life is not a computer game. (well, we are in a digital world/universe but thats a different issue.)
It's not made out of whole cloth, but based on what we actually see in nature. Further, the theory of evolution doesn't preclude a creator who intentionally uses evolution as their means of biological creation. A "creator line of thinking" is neither required nor rejected.
It is fundamentally opposed to any creator. There is no need for God in evolution.
Further, it is noteworthy that intelligence is not necessary for creation of complexity. Even normal dynamics of wind, earth, and other nonliving systems can generate surprising complexity (such as polygonal structures in cracks in dried mud). And living organisms, especially social animals, generate complexity in their environment. Even humans create most of their complexity through nonliving tools.
There is a difference between complexity heres.
Crystals have a structure, in there atomic patterns they have order. ABCD ABCD ABCD
DNA is vastly more, they not only have an order to them they have a specified complexity.
To elaborate, a crystal is a repetitive arrangement of atoms, so is ordered. Such ordered structures usually have the lowest energy, so will form spontaneously at low enough temperatures. And the information of the crystals is already present in their building blocks; for example, directional forces between atoms. But proteins and DNA, the most important large molecules of life, are not ordered (in the sense of repetitive), but have high specified complexity. Without specification external to the system, i.e., the programmed machinery of living things or the intelligent direction of an organic chemist, there is no natural tendency to form such complex specified arrangements at all. When their building blocks are combined (and even this requires special conditions5), a random sequence is the result. The difference between a crystal and DNA is like the difference between a book containing nothing but ABCD repeated and a book of Shakespeare. However, this doesn’t stop many evolutionists (ignorant of Orgel’s distinction) claiming that crystals prove that specified complexity can arise naturally—they merely prove that order can arise naturally, which no creationist contests.
DNA on the other hand is a binary encoded system which is polymorphic, error checking, error correcting, self repairing to which it encodes nano machines via RNA modules which are send to factories which read the code and produces protien chains. Thoses protiens chains are transported into a folding factory to produce the three dimensional shapes that the structure is suppose to carry out. It's only when you get the end produce do you get any benefit. Do you see robots, factories, walking delivery trucks, power plants producing energy packages running on protons. All these point to a very intelligent creator.
None of them can be explained by evolution's magical/non existent information gaining powers.
So what came first? DNA, RNA, protein factories to read RNA, protein folding chambers, nano robots walking on self assembling road in the cell, power generates that converts energy at an estimated 100% efficiency rating (a car is only 7%), Ports that open and close on requiests to allow things to enter in inner cell. The list goes on. How complex does it have to get ??? in the 1949 there was a evol vs creationist debate in london where the evolutionist said evol would be disproven if there was magnets being used or if there ever was a wheel. Wel we know birds and buterfies uses magnetic fields and i know of 2 spinning wheels inside a cell. 1 of them all cells have because it's require for life because all the internal processed uses APT to work. I already have you a video link to it. Did you know your body produces and cosumes half it's weight in APT each day. Cyanide kills so quickly because it breaks this moter.
How complex does a cell have to be until you accept it was designed?
How many interlocked systems does there have to be ?
How does the information get there? Like the car with th jet engine, any improvement must be fully functional or NS will deleted it..
I disagree, the algorithm doesn't explain the gain. and all sub components of that algorithm works against it and explain all change already observed. How does the whole of the parts be not only greater than the sum of the parts but also change polarity?
Lot of systems work that way. For example, your internal combustion engine and jet engines of a previous example. Start taking parts away and pretty soon you have a bunch of metal, not a working engine.
Arghh!!!, all the parts of the engine are involved in the motion of the machine!!!
We were talking about a "process/theory" in the above. Not something real and works
If you are trying to make a scenario with an engine, any engine, in this scenario to what I said above about how all of the components work against the outcome wanted. It would be like a car with NO engine, with only a brakes to speed it up and parachute to control its direction. both parts do not make this theoretical car move forwards, both will hinder it. And thats what evol is, something which all parts move in the opposite direction of the direction wanted. So the evolution train is coming, but only in the wrong direction.
Now, in a physical machine, the whole of the parts combine into a greater than sum net positive. Now any engine would be a perfect example of something called irreducible complexity. IC means you can't take away anything or the thing doesn't work. I got a lovly movie of the flagellum at home, it talks about 40 different proteins, the nearest evol have to this is a needle jet noise structure which has only 12 of the proteins in it. Again they suffer from IC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSxRYx82Gk
Thus in the theory of Evol, you can't have a halve functioning foo() organ until it actually foos(). Any attempt to evol a foo() organ will result in a non function organ. Natural Selection will remove the foo as best as it can. Do you have a foo organ? Do any human have a foo organ? So irreducible complexity also works forwards to block any improvements required anything more than a 3 point mutation. (it took 35,000 generations for a bacteria over 30yrs to mutate a 3 point spot mutated broken switch for processing food in another environment (again thats devolving, just letting you know the scale of the problem here for evols.))
Again leading to the problem of where the information comes from. How can you jump the hurdle when you are push back from it?
You can test this out for yourself, make a simple ant food game where ants eat the food. You can cheat by evolving the ants to a level where they can see the food infront of them. once you got that up and running, take the perfect ant and make it the only ant in the world. (x100). change the algorthem so that only the ants that collect enough food goes on to have children. make each ant breed with another and add a mutation in, lets say 90% remain on, and add 10% (less fit) new only being a mixture of the existing ants. you will then see that the mutations build up in the entire populations until the point where it crashes in on itself. (you can not make perfect copies of the original perfect ant). Here you will see NS block the less fit. and mutations building up in the population.
We can actually demonstrate this phenomena by making the mutation rate rather high. A low mutation rate combined with selection doesn't exhibit the above behavior.
Yeah, that would do it as well.
But I fear you dont see my point about how you must have faith for evolution to work as it's own parts work against it. All of biology can be explained without it. Its only purpose is to reject the creator line of thinking which is not unscientific. If something has specified complexity, can't/very unlikely come about naturally, and describes something, is that not a work of intelligent? (to what ever supernatural theory you want to attach to it).
So can you answer my question, How do you get evolution from increase information? Or atleast admit you take it by faith that evol is real, which effectively makes it a supernatural explanation and not "real (operational) science".
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
