Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cimber

Evolution: A Detailed Anaylsis

125 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ozi

Cimber regardless of the number of times you try and explain the word theory, does not mean suppostion in scientific prinicples but does in others is futile. In order to prove your point, all you need to do is produce a credible scientific works which says evolution fact.

Capeo - dirty tactic, i remember dubgging the nylon bug thing in another thread a while back. with a comprehensive reply. you bring it back as proof. LOL. And the bottle neck cheetah thing is was dealt with too.

evolutionist love to beat around the bush and divert attention from what really matters, and for them its all about matter. However, you need to get over the hurdle of the protien first. before anything else could have happened, they are the building blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Cimber
I read your post a thousand times or similar stuff, but your the first to to say the evolution does not bring about a far more suprior specie, which through the mechanisms, which contribute to the survival of the fittest, become a better specie, but you admit they dont. so why is this evolution, coz the xperts dont have this view. If animal adpats to its surrounding by those genes which are dormant but present from the start, this is not evolution, its merely adapting to a situation to best they can. You dont see eskimos, evolving, or whales, since their specie is under threat and close to extinction, the pressures are there, but no evolution on a micro or macro level.

Evolution doesn't create an overall superior species. By this me and my colleagues mean that humans are not considered a more superior species to say, horses. This is because humans are adapted to live the way they are, and horses are adapted to live the way they do. Evolution occurs on the population level. It can't happen to individuals.

You see, the claim of evolution is that everything came by chance, lets see, if i get a glass and smash it on the floor, will another glass form by chance, no, ! How many times will i need to do this for it happen, LOL. You know it will never happen, by chance. How about if i was in the desert and i come across a nokia phone, you would think someone has dropped, but i say to you know, its because the natural elements, like sand, oil etc, came together and formed this mobile nokia phone over millions of years, you would laugh at me, this is why i laugh at evolutionists. This is their type of thinking.

Glass isn't a living organism and can't evolve, and technically your example will happen, but it would take an amount of years greater than the age of the universe. It is possible but not probable. Also, you are bringing examples, such as the nokia phone and glass, which are not organisms which can be considered 'organic'.

So much for the cell, but the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)

This excerpt, which is copy/pasted from a site similar to Darwinismrefuted.com, is false. First and foremost, evolution doesn't deal with origins. In other words, you are fighting with the wrong theory. Biochemistry is not chance. It is not a coincidence that elements interact with carbon in a certain way. Complex molecules form in conditions that are similar to those in space. Its wrong to say that this couldn't happen on Earth.

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

Again, Biochemistry is not chance. Theres a reason for why carbon can potentially bond with 2 hydrogens and 2 other carbons for example. This isn't probability. This is why life forms, because it obeys the rules of how molecules form. Also, what you seem to be describing here is protein synthesis. Protein synthesis isn't based on probability, far from it. It is directed by enzymes and what the body needs at a given time due to certain receptors in the cell.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300". The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability").

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.

Its a sorry attempt at probability, because whoever did this math is assuming the probability to make a single specific protein. Any kind of protein can be made, which drastically skews the odds in the opposite direction.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Again, you are assuming that the organism spontaneously generated to meet the specifications of the organism. Evolution, which doesn't deal with origins, doesn't state this and abiogensis doesn't either.

Proteins are the most vital elements for living things. They not only combine to make up living cells, but also play key roles in the body chemistry. From protein synthesis to hormonal communications, it is possible to see proteins in action.

I guess its fine to completely forget about the other building blocks of life, which include lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes"107 . However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.

Wrong, I just did. Talking about protein synthesis is indeed creation however, because it is being created by the body. Abiogenisis however, created the building blocks of life.

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.110

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 1040000.111 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.112

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.113

The reason Hoyle used the term "psychological" is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. The rejection of God's existence is their main goal. For this reason alone, they go on defending irrational theories which they at the same time acknowledge to be impossible.

Again, all of this nonsense is assuming that life was spontaneously created in its present form, which isn't possible. Also, the assembly of proteins doesn't occur at one point, then stop again. It occurs over and over and over again, simultaneously. It didn't stop.

Left-handed Proteins

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed". The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "coincidence" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.114

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of "conscious intervention".

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by coincidence.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

First of all, some bacteria do indeed use right-handed proteins. Again, amino acids are known to form in outside of the conditions found on Earth. Those found on meteorites, are left-handed as well, as seen in the article in Nature "Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite." Self-assemblies are known to amplify a single handedness, as seen in Serine octamer reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber

I'll answer the rest later, because its alot more time consuming to answer these questions from your own knowledge, rather than copy/pasting a full page of nonsense that doesn't deal with all of the confounding variables that are present in biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber

I see you reference Fred Hoyle a lot in your posts. Here are the things I see wrong with his ideas.

1. His probability statements regarding the making of proteins are taken to the extreme with modern organisms. Current proteins and organisms were far less 'complicated'.

2. Another assumption dealing with proteins with fixed size.

3. As I stated above, you are using trials that occur one after the other sequentially. In reality, these occur at the same time.

4. The fact that you totally ignore other biological substances such as ribozymes in your calculations, which would not make it more unlikely, rather more likely for their synthesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozi
Evolution doesn't create an overall superior species. By this me and my colleagues mean that humans are not considered a more superior species to say, horses. This is because humans are adapted to live the way they are, and horses are adapted to live the way they do. Evolution occurs on the population level. It can't happen to individuals.

LOL, you see this is wrong, calling something evolution just when infact its simply animal adpating to their situation, no new information arises, only dormant genes come in to play, genes that were present there already. Adaptation is not evolution, evolutionist have gone n this direction in recent years because they are struggling to convince themselves about the theory, never mind others. So adapt , anything which adapts to its surrounding as evolution. I say why are there any animal under severe pressure to surivive in the world today, evolving. You say that evolution does not create superior species to the one it replaces, ofcourse it does, its survival of the fittest, so unfit die, and the fit live on, by adapting, not evolving.

Glass isn't a living organism and can't evolve, and technically your example will happen, but it would take an amount of years greater than the age of the universe. It is possible but not probable. Also, you are bringing examples, such as the nokia phone and glass, which are not organisms which can be considered 'organic'.

Ofcourse its inanimate, but th point is how many time would you need to smash a glass in order for a new perfectly formed glass to appear, or even a transitional form. You infact reckon it could happen, by saying its probable, well mate, do you know the figure, beyond which mathamaticians, believe something to be beyond possible, its becomes impossible, I would check it if i was you.

This excerpt, which is copy/pasted from a site similar to Darwinismrefuted.com, is false. First and foremost, evolution doesn't deal with origins. In other words, you are fighting with the wrong theory. Biochemistry is not chance. It is not a coincidence that elements interact with carbon in a certain way. Complex molecules form in conditions that are similar to those in space. Its wrong to say that this couldn't happen on Earth.

Firstly i dont use websites, i have the books, and the info i provided comes from an e-book, called evolution deciet. You see if evolution does not deal with origins, then what is it dealing with? If what you say is right, then god did put species on this planet fully formed as the cambrian stage shows, the sudden appearance of complex organisms. Complex organisms forming in space, show me. Then show me, fossils of complex organisms, going through a tranistional form, before become the complete form. You dont hvae any, and the ones you may brng, i have refutations to them too.

Again, Biochemistry is not chance. Theres a reason for why carbon can potentially bond with 2 hydrogens and 2 other carbons for example. This isn't probability. This is why life forms, because it obeys the rules of how molecules form. Also, what you seem to be describing here is protein synthesis. Protein synthesis isn't based on probability, far from it. It is directed by enzymes and what the body needs at a given time due to certain receptors in the cell.

Protien is the building block of life, if you cant create one by chance, then the rest of it is just futile.

Its a sorry attempt at probability, because whoever did this math is assuming the probability to make a single specific protein. Any kind of protein can be made, which drastically skews the odds in the opposite direction.

Ofcourse any kind can be formed, but to form the right type, left handed ones, inorder to build life, is impossible, the probability equation clearly illustrated this, just because its beyond you, does not mean its not right. That single specific protien,, is required to build life, if its not the right type, its useless to build life.

Again, you are assuming that the organism spontaneously generated to meet the specifications of the organism. Evolution, which doesn't deal with origins, doesn't state this and abiogensis doesn't either.

You are mistaken, i can bring quotes from credible evolutiuonist which say otherwise. the whole reason evlution theory was created, was to fight the church and give an alternative to origins, like darwins origin of species, oh but i bet origin mean something different here like theory does when applied to evoltuion. LOL.

I guess its fine to completely forget about the other building blocks of life, which include lipids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids.

No its not, but protein is essential and the building block of life, you cant jump that hurdle the rest is futile, be luck i aint gone on to dna and rna yet.

Wrong, I just did. Talking about protein synthesis is indeed creation however, because it is being created by the body. Abiogenisis however, created the building blocks of life.

Dont worry i will bring you some thing more and indepth on abiogenesis.

Again, all of this nonsense is assuming that life was spontaneously created in its present form, which isn't possible. Also, the assembly of proteins doesn't occur at one point, then stop again. It occurs over and over and over again, simultaneously. It didn't stop.

Lol, mate all the evidence suggests so, even if you go back as far as the cambrian stage you will see, that complex organisms have spontaneously arrived all of a sudden. EXplain that, in the same way any where in the fossil records there are no transitional forms, evolutionist have been caught faking stuff.

First of all, some bacteria do indeed use right-handed proteins. Again, amino acids are known to form in outside of the conditions found on Earth. Those found on meteorites, are left-handed as well, as seen in the article in Nature "Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite." Self-assemblies are known to amplify a single handedness, as seen in Serine octamer reactions.

Yeh but if the were appropriate maybe you would have life on them too. LOL. Taking everyting in to consideration, premordial earth atmosphere etc, its is impossible to form one protein cell , whch is beneficial to building life. Thus no evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozi
I see you reference Fred Hoyle a lot in your posts. Here are the things I see wrong with his ideas.

1. His probability statements regarding the making of proteins are taken to the extreme with modern organisms. Current proteins and organisms were far less 'complicated'.

2. Another assumption dealing with proteins with fixed size.

3. As I stated above, you are using trials that occur one after the other sequentially. In reality, these occur at the same time.

4. The fact that you totally ignore other biological substances such as ribozymes in your calculations, which would not make it more unlikely, rather more likely for their synthesis.

Mate im just scratching the surface, i can go in deeper, if you wish, and relay info back to you on all what you say and have concerns about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Everyone else’s question

Show me your lab results of life being reproduced in a lab from nothing?

FYI: Craig Venter has now produced synthetic life IN THE LAB. Several articles on his work have recently appeared in "Science."

Re Labs: My lab is outdoors. I set up tests and conduct them with living trees in "natural" forests, mostly in Arkansas. That's where my proof comes from.

I don't use charts and graphs, but pieces of wood stretching back 11,000 years in an unbroken sequence. I can pretty much tell you the weather during any six-month period for that entire time, as well as some disasters, such as fires, frosts, hail and ice storms. The Bible only covers 6000 years of history; my tree-ring calendar nearly doubles that and does it in far greater detail. And that's just the beginning.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber
Ofcourse its inanimate, but th point is how many time would you need to smash a glass in order for a new perfectly formed glass to appear, or even a transitional form. You infact reckon it could happen, by saying its probable, well mate, do you know the figure, beyond which mathamaticians, believe something to be beyond possible, its becomes impossible, I would check it if i was you.

Glass cannot reproduce and it can't mutate. It has no genetic variation either. This pretty much sums up that it is not going to form a new glass.

Firstly i dont use websites, i have the books, and the info i provided comes from an e-book, called evolution deciet. You see if evolution does not deal with origins, then what is it dealing with? If what you say is right, then god did put species on this planet fully formed as the cambrian stage shows, the sudden appearance of complex organisms. Complex organisms forming in space, show me. Then show me, fossils of complex organisms, going through a tranistional form, before become the complete form. You dont hvae any, and the ones you may brng, i have refutations to them too.

Yes, evolution doesn't deal with origins. It does deal with how organisms progress. It doesn't deal with how they came to be. God could have placed the precursors to life here and set out evolution. Even Pope John Paul stated that he believed in Evolution. Every biologist knows evolutions occurring. If it didn't WE wouldn't have a job. The doctors and vaccine makers would be out of work because all they would need is one vaccine for the flu. The Cambrian explosion also does in no one say complex organisms suddenly appeared. It was indeed quick, but if anything this is evidence for evolution. There were complex organisms before this time, some examples include those found in the Doushantuo Formation in China and those found before 555 Mya. Also transitional forms are found in the Cambrian fossils such as lobopods. Also, the Cambrian Explosion lasted more than 10 million years, this is hardly sudden.

Protien is the building block of life, if you cant create one by chance, then the rest of it is just futile.

Again, you fail to leave out carbs, lipids, and nucleic acids. Seem to be stuck on proteins for some reason. Without any of the other 3, we wouldn't be around. Or is it because your books can't hypothesize why these can't form. There is no reason whatsoever why proteins cannot form in early earth like condition, given the rules biochemistry follows and the bond orders of the elements.

Ofcourse any kind can be formed, but to form the right type, left handed ones, inorder to build life, is impossible, the probability equation clearly illustrated this, just because its beyond you, does not mean its not right. That single specific protien,, is required to build life, if its not the right type, its useless to build life.

Give those probability statements to any statistician and they will laugh in your face. I am a bioinformaticist and I deal with statistics every day, the authors do a poor job at handling confounding variables.

You are mistaken, i can bring quotes from credible evolutiuonist which say otherwise. the whole reason evlution theory was created, was to fight the church and give an alternative to origins, like darwins origin of species, oh but i bet origin mean something different here like theory does when applied to evoltuion. LOL.

Theory in the context of evolution means the same as any other theory in science.

No its not, but protein is essential and the building block of life, you cant jump that hurdle the rest is futile, be luck i aint gone on to dna and rna yet.

You say, "no its not, but protein is essential and the building block of life." This is a contradictory statement. You need all of these things for life. It only happens that you focus on proteins because thats all you have information on in your ebooks. If you have information on the origin of carbs, lipids, and nucleic acids, then please by all means present it.

Lol, mate all the evidence suggests so, even if you go back as far as the cambrian stage you will see, that complex organisms have spontaneously arrived all of a sudden. EXplain that, in the same way any where in the fossil records there are no transitional forms, evolutionist have been caught faking stuff.

Again, the Cambrian explosion was hardly sudden and was not the first time complex organisms formed. Read established articles instead of your ebooks. I am not someone who goes around only looking at one side of the coin, which I assume you do because you still think complex organisms formed first in the Cambrian. I have read creationist books and can't point out every shred of blatant falsification. Your assessment of evolutionists 'faking stuff' is an overstatement. Such things as piltdown man were made by the Europeans because they wanted to be superior to the Africans for holding the missing link. If biological tests were up to par as they were today, we could easily spot a fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
Ofcourse any kind can be formed, but to form the right type, left handed ones, inorder to build life, is impossible, the probability equation clearly illustrated this, just because its beyond you, does not mean its not right. That single specific protien,, is required to build life, if its not the right type, its useless to build life.

Wait... what the hell is a left handed protein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Wait... what the hell is a left handed protein?

Duh, the ones that need to buy the special scissors and can openers. :P

linked-image

Im sorry I couldnt resist. I will go write myself up now...

Edited by Fluffybunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Wait... what the hell is a left handed protein?

Many carbon molecules exist in one of two forms called stereomers. These are said to be right-handed or left-handed depending on how the various chains are arranged.

In a carbon chain, one atom is chosen as the reference atom. It has to have four DIFFERENT chains on its four reaction sites. If I remember correctly, the chain having the lowest atomic weight is used as a reference. The other chains are then arranged on the far side of the reference atom in a circle around the reference chain. The molecule is right-handed if the chains, in order of ascending atomic weight, are arranged in a clockwise manner, left-handed if it is arranged counter-clockwise. Life makes use only of left-handed stereomers. The right-handed ones range from neutral to deadly in their effects. Each stereomer has exactly the same empirical formula and atomic weight as its "twin."

That's probably clear as mud. It's much easier when I can talk with my hands. Basically, same molecule, but with atoms arranged differently.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero

The problem with all your probabilities is that they apply to ONE TRIAL ONLY. But the random events which might create life occur on the order of billions of times per second in every cubic meter on the surface of the Earth. Multiply your astronomically small probabilities by an astronomically large number of trials and the result approaches 1, the certainty that a random event will eventually produce a living organism.

Another problem is that the chemical reactions needed to create life ARE NOT RANDOM. One reaction dictates that another particular reaction must follow and at the same time precludes others. This lays waste to your calculations.

You are using the assumption of randomness to mean "haphazard." Random processes follow a very strict protocol. They are anything except haphazard.

You are also assuming that a living organism must transmit its information via DNA. That is not necessarily the case, as in the protein example you just cited. In short, we're not even sure that a protein is needed to create a living thing. Hypothetically, a life-form based on silicon should be possible on some boiling-hot planet in a galaxy far far away.

Twenty years ago, we didn't know that a bacterium could live in water hot enough to melt lead; we didn't know that some plants can conduct photosynthesis in what looks like perfect darkness to us; we didn't know that microbes could live in the vacuum and radiation of space. Fifty years ago we didn't know that organic molecules exist in the spaces between the stars. What will we know in another fifty years? Life is not only capable of more than we imagine, it is capable of more than we CAN imagine.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
BlindMessiah

It's so easy to copy and paste other's works than to write detailed responses from your own personal knowledge isn't it Ozi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fearisgood
First and foremost, evolution doesn't deal with origins.
If I may correct you, The Theory of Evolution (living things only) does not deal with abiogenesis. However, evolution as an explanation for the way abiogenesis happened is very much part of abiogenesis. By this I mean the origins of life through non-telic means can only be described by random variation (sheer-dumb-luck SDL) and selection and the basic mechanisms for ToE also rely on SDL an selection.

In other words, you are fighting with the wrong theory. Biochemistry is not chance. It is not a coincidence that elements interact with carbon in a certain way. Complex molecules form in conditions that are similar to those in space. Its wrong to say that this couldn't happen on Earth.
Abiogenesis is not a theory, and IMO is struggling to be a plausible hypothesis (just my opinion). ToE and abiogenesis deal with different things and perhaps abiogenesis could be discussed in the appropriate thread. It is is true that elements interact with carbon in a certain way, however the amount of different reactions with carbon is astronomical and there really is no reason or mechanism in chemistry that says reactions will end up in the building blocks of life (never mind self replicating ones). Unless of course the starting conditions are somehow rigged from the beginning.

Again, Biochemistry is not chance. Theres a reason for why carbon can potentially bond with 2 hydrogens and 2 other carbons for example. This isn't probability. This is why life forms, because it obeys the rules of how molecules form.
In cells yes, because enzymes direct the way certain reactions proceed. In "primordial soup" there really is not anything preventing carbon molecules reacting with a smorgasbord of other compounds

Also, what you seem to be describing here is protein synthesis. Protein synthesis isn't based on probability, far from it. It is directed by enzymes and what the body needs at a given time due to certain receptors in the cell.
Perhaps the poster was referring reactions that are not guided by enzymes.

Wrong, I just did. Talking about protein synthesis is indeed creation however, because it is being created by the body. Abiogenisis however, created the building blocks of life.
Perhaps true, but at what concentrations, and would be these concentrations be high enough to promote polymerization or self-replicating systems?

Again, all of this nonsense is assuming that life was spontaneously created in its present form, which isn't possible. Also, the assembly of proteins doesn't occur at one point, then stop again. It occurs over and over and over again, simultaneously. It didn't stop.
In cells yes, but a plausible mechanism for peptide polymerization of peptides longer than 20-30 amino acids long under prebiotic conditions is still needed for that to be true.

FYI: Craig Venter has now produced synthetic life IN THE LAB. Several articles on his work have recently appeared in "Science."

Thereby only demonstrating that intelligence can modify life.

Yes, evolution doesn't deal with origins. It does deal with how organisms progress. It doesn't deal with how they came to be. God could have placed the precursors to life here and set out evolution.
I think you will definitely like The Design Matrix :D

Even Pope John Paul stated that he believed in Evolution. Every biologist knows evolutions occurring. If it didn't WE wouldn't have a job. The doctors and vaccine makers would be out of work because all they would need is one vaccine for the flu. The Cambrian explosion also does in no one say complex organisms suddenly appeared. It was indeed quick, but if anything this is evidence for evolution. There were complex organisms before this time, some examples include those found in the Doushantuo Formation in China and those found before 555 Mya. Also transitional forms are found in the Cambrian fossils such as lobopods. Also, the Cambrian Explosion lasted more than 10 million years, this is hardly sudden.
Being a macroevolution agnostic, I do not believe you need to believe in macroevolution to succeed as a docter (especially a docter), "vaccine makers", cellular and molecular biologist etc. Evolution happens, organisms adapt, genomes change etc that alone will help a lot. 10-20 million years is a blink of an eye for all that diversification to occur. Scientists do not even know what genetic changes in 6-7 million makes us different from chimpanzees. Scientists know most (if not all of the differences) but they do not how it relates to the physiological changes, not even to mention the high deleterious rate from our last common ancestorLet alone the Cambrian explosionand all the other explotions of diversification in the fossil record.

Again, you fail to leave out carbs, lipids, and nucleic acids. Seem to be stuck on proteins for some reason. Without any of the other 3, we wouldn't be around. Or is it because your books can't hypothesize why these can't form. There is no reason whatsoever why proteins cannot form in early earth like condition, given the rules biochemistry follows and the bond orders of the elements.
Given the rules of chemistry, I would say that is exactly why protein formation in a prebiotic mileu is so difficult. Besides, abiogenesis scientists are generally divided into two camps, metabolism first and genetics first (RNA world) because the protein-first world seems unlikely.

The problem with all your probabilities is that they apply to ONE TRIAL ONLY. But the random events which might create life occur on the order of billions of times per second in every cubic meter on the surface of the Earth. Multiply your astronomically small probabilities by an astronomically large number of trials and the result approaches 1, the certainty that a random event will eventually produce a living organism.

Another problem is that the chemical reactions needed to create life ARE NOT RANDOM. One reaction dictates that another particular reaction must follow and at the same time precludes others. This lays waste to your calculations.

This should get you thinking. No law dictates that, of all the possible outcomes of a reaction (e.g. the formose reaction), the building blocks will form in a greater concentration as observed in current chemistry. A huge number of possible reactions are possible even with relatively simple carbon molecules and there is no rule that dictates that will result in the preferential formation of the subset of compounds needed for life. IE, no selection, just sheer-dumb-luck can explain abiogenesis atm.

Could anyone please show the location/database where I can find the PR. C. sequence in this Ohno 1984 paper? Thanks.

Edited by Fearisgood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
That's probably clear as mud. It's much easier when I can talk with my hands. Basically, same molecule, but with atoms arranged differently.

Oh, Im quite aware of that, but the left hand/right hand has more to do with amino acids rather than proteins, because of the fact that proteins are made of numerous aminoacids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WraithGod

I love you.

Way too many people misunderstand the precise mechanisms of evolution; they assume "monkeys" just all turned into humans one day. It's impossible to use evolution in a debate when your opponent thinks that way. This should be stickied.

'Specially love the stepladder/tree pic there. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
IE, no selection, just sheer-dumb-luck can explain abiogenesis atm.

I think that's what I've been saying.

Just one question: are you actually some sort of biochemist or are you just cutting and pasting this stuff?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stackofbooks

Before even reading it, I'll say thanks. I always grow tired of people being intellectually dishonest in order to spread creationist propaganda that distorts the concept of evolution. Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Unless of course the starting conditions are somehow rigged from the beginning.

It seems you are taking it on yourself to offer some sort of evidence that "the starting conditions [were] rigged from the beginning." I think you should show that evidence. What evidence do you have?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Yeh but if the were appropriate maybe you would have life on them too. LOL. Taking everyting in to consideration, premordial earth atmosphere etc, its is impossible to form one protein cell , whch is beneficial to building life. Thus no evolution.

Where did you get that idea from? Why is it impossible, there is life found in almost every extreme environment, so why not primordial earth? Evolution it's self is a proven fact btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Furthermore... what is a protein cell?

Ozi, seriously, is this the "science" your "sources" use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoctorBrodsky

Thanks for posting that cimber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rev_Sam

Cure the "common" cold and I'll believe evolution isn't happening.

But until then, evolution it is.

~The Rev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
Duh, the ones that need to buy the special scissors and can openers. :P

linked-image

Im sorry I couldnt resist. I will go write myself up now...

:lol: like it lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CallSignWolf

Excellent post Cimber :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.