Creation vs Evolution is pointless.

reply to post by gncnew


So your claim is the the organization of DNA nucleotides is based on independent random events? Really?

Originally posted by mithrawept
God is the manifestation of faith, not the other way around.

I could have faith that the universe was created by a giant immortal intergalactic lobster called Colin. It's no more/less possible or believable than the christian god.

So faith is an ass because it cannot be proven which faith has validity. My faith in Colin is equal to a believer's faith in god. Unless of course someone has an argument which disproves the creation of the universe by Colin in favour of god, of course....!

Why do we keep discussing the whole C vs E issue? Creationism is just such bunkum. How about an alternative?: The universe was created by my pet cat, discuss.

[edit on 5/25/2010 by mithrawept]

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Colin wasn't a lobster, but rather a giant rainbow-farting turtle. Please don't mislabel him as a lobster because it offends my religion...

Titen:
1. How about a world where faith and religion adapt to the facts according, where instead of defending a book of myths as absolute truth they actually accept the evidence. Most Christians do this, most believe that God used evolution instead of magical creation because the evidence says so.

2. Evolution doesn't even work that way. Perhaps you should actually educate yourself as to what evolution permits. In order to get from fish to vertebrate land mammal took a long time, it wasn't something that happened all at once it was gradual. Evolution works very very gradually. Its not something that happens all at once, it typically takes many generations worth of genetic variation for speciation to even occur.

Tiktaalik was one of the most important steps in the transition:

3. You are neither a mathemetician or a scientist.

Also, do you know what the odds of magical creation being true are? Zero. Because magic does not exist AND evolution has been proven the source of bio-diversity.

4. Because Evolution is DIRECTLY OBSERVED and is a theory proven so well that there are no competing scientific theories

So let me get this - I'm a fraud because you deem me neither mathematician or scientiest - without knowing what I do for a living... but you're here on ATS and are a big fan of UFO's? (hey pot, this is kettle).

Um, where exactly was evolution directly observed? The kind we're talking about here, not obsure mutations. If that's the case than perhaps we can call someone born with only 3 fingers "evolution" and all celebrate?

Lastly - your statement about the Tiktaalik was perfect... I show you why in a second (sorry, some of your gang left you out to hang on this one).

NegativeBeef:
1. Maybe that's because man didn't evolve from monkeys and elephants didn't evolve from rats? have you thought of that yet genius?

Hmm, maybe you didnt read rnaa's post about MES? part of that theory is that we all came from the same single celled organisim. Or maybe you just never heard anything about evolution - the WHOLE CRUX of the argument is that humans evolved from monkeys... so what are you talking about?

rnaa:
1. If you are asking for an example of a fish suddenly growing legs and walking up on dry land as a 'proof' of the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", you are just displaying your ignorance and badly need to educate your self (homie).

Referencing MES as the end-all...
"Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool."

3. And spontaneous generation is relevant because?

Science does not accept spontaneous generation as a valid hypothesis and hasn't for over 300 years. Way to be current. Why does a mathematician's mind games have anything to do with your argument against science.

Ok, so in one statement you tell me that MES is the key, and "Universal Common Decent" is a key to MES... but rat from fish is somehow not plausible. Got it.

Oh, and nice try. Look, I referenced that site for the mathematical probabilities. Not for every theory on it. You asked for me to have the math explained, and then attacked other stuff on the site that had nothing to do with math.... Circular argument (I feel like I'm debating my 13 year old on why he can't drive yet).

And yep, rnaa kills Titen. If the fish growing legs shows my ignorance of MES, then what's this reference to the Tiktaalik all about exactly? It reads to me a like fish grew legs...



(con't)...

Circular logic and attacks dont make you more right, just more obtuse.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by gncnew]

MrXYZ:
1. Math isn't one of your strengths...and for someone who says he believes in evolution "to a limited extent", your knowledge of it is fairly poor

2. We don't know how the universe was created, at least not fully. However, filling gaps of knowledge with pure guesswork and fairy tales, like creationists do, is an illogical and irrational approach.

3. You seriously use earthage.com as a credible source?

Look at what kind of other gems they have on that site...most of their reasoning is 100% false, a lie, and/or not based on any facts.

I think you're my special favorite in this whole thing. So far you've had nothing to say of any merit. You've just sat back and lobbed mud balls at anyone who whispers God. Methinks we've found a coat tailer.

By the way, your reply about filling gaps with guesswork... Um, have you not figured out yet that this is exactly what evolutionary theorist are doing.. they are making educated guesses (funny, I think that's a definition or something) at what they think happened based on what they research.

stereologist:
1. I've heard these outrageous lies myself because I have been to creationist lectures and heard what they say. And I love the way you used the qualifier "pure".

Tell you what. You brought up the analogy so why don't you show us the math. Tell us how you arrived at this value. You were able to make a long post of ridicule based on the odds so why don't you show us how you arrived at the odds. Please show us.

2. Do you see the problem with these pathetic attempts at odds? Probaly not.

The reason the web page author is a liar is that they post odds that have nothing to do with the way evolution works. I don't think that this was a mistake. I believe that the author was smart enough to understand that what they posted was a lie. I'm not surprised it's the same thing I've heard at creationist lectures.

You quoted from the website.
1. A quote from a tv character.
2. A calculation about independent events
3. A statement that says what evolution is not about - pure randomness

3. It is easy to come up with nonsense numbers that have no meaning and are based on bad application of simple math. Creationists shamelessly do this all of the time.

Um, you asked me to give you math exaples, I did, and you said it's not creditable because they quote a TV character? So all facts are suddenly lies if they randomly quote someone else?

The examples are unrelated calculations are to help people understand the numbers that we're talking about here. To tell someone "10 to 60th power" makes no sense unless they are a mathematician. But to tell them the lottery example as a comparison makes it much more clear.


You guys are essentially saying "Show me proof" and then saying "that proof is meaningless"....

Figure out what you guys want, then either say "well I still dont believe" but dont disparage me for giving you exactly what you asked for.

Let me ask this in comparison - so I'm guessing none of you believe in Aliens then right? There's no proof, only the probability of it...

reply to post by gncnew


Actually, I asked you to provide the math on your Texas coins problem. Instead you posted someone else's math and a quote from a tv character.

Impossible for Saints to win Super Bowl (a lie to show foolishness of creationists)
I showed through an example that calculating odds that seem incredible, like the impossibility of the Saints winning the Super Bowl, is easy if you are willing to misuse math.

I used the same invalid nonsense to calculate the Super Bowl odds as the web page calcualted the odds of a nucleotide sequence.

You guys are essentially saying "Show me proof" and then saying "that proof is meaningless"....

The math you referred to does not reflect evolution or chemistry or science for that matter.

Here are the blatant mistakes made in the article. Again, I believe the author is smart enough to know that they are lying.
1. Evolution does not claim that E Coli claim into being without evolving from a simpler form
2. The chance of a left handed nucleotide being selected next is not 0.5
3. Sequences of nucleotides are not independently random

The odds calculation makes assumptions that are completely wrong. This I believe is done knowingly. I suggest that the authors are smart and therefore are smart enough to know that they are lying.

reply to post by rnaa


Was it you who said evolution isn't randomness?

reply to post by Dragiero

Was it you who said evolution isn't randomness?

Yes.

Mutation is random. Natural Selection is not.

Mutation supplies the 'raw material'. Natural Selection filters the good from the bad.

Which part of that are you having trouble understanding?

reply to post by gncnew

Hmm, maybe you didnt read rnaa's post about MES? part of that theory is that we all came from the same single celled organisim. Or maybe you just never heard anything about evolution - the WHOLE CRUX of the argument is that humans evolved from monkeys... so what are you talking about?

You aren't listening.

The Theory of Evolution (MES) does NOT say that humans evolved from monkeys. Please stop repeating that ignorant lie if you want people to take you seriously. It was a lie when it was started by Darwin's opponents 150 years ago and it remains a lie today. Repetition shows your ignorance, not your thoughtfullness.

The MES says that BOTH humans and monkeys evolved from an earlier common ancestor which was neither human nor monkey.

You did not "descend" from your cousins, but you do share a common ancestor with your cousins which is neither you nor your cousins. And all may or may not exist at the same time.

Ok, so in one statement you tell me that MES is the key, and "Universal Common Decent" is a key to MES... but rat from fish is somehow not plausible. Got it.

Not in one fell swoop. Somewhere in the distant past rats (and all mammals of course) do have a fish as a common ancestor. It is a long chain. I read your question, (with some justification, but perhaps inaccurately) as impling short term transformation, with a detailed ancestry including intermediate half fish/half rats on the order of the infamous "crocaduck". The existence of a "Crockaduck" like animal would disprove the MES. There is no contradiction in my statement.

Oh, and nice try. Look, I referenced that site for the mathematical probabilities. Not for every theory on it. You asked for me to have the math explained, and then attacked other stuff on the site that had nothing to do with math.... Circular argument (I feel like I'm debating my 13 year old on why he can't drive yet).

Is this still addressed to me? If so I didn't comment on anything other than the irrelevancy on the odds of Spontaneous Generation. Spontaneous Generation has not been part of biology for 300 years because it was proven experimentally to be false. That a mathemetician would calculate the odds of it occuring is just an exercise in mathematics and is not an argument for or against evolution. Your introduction of it is a red herring that just distracts from your argument.

And yep, rnaa kills Titen. If the fish growing legs shows my ignorance of MES, then what's this reference to the Tiktaalik all about exactly? It reads to me a like fish grew legs...

Handfishes are an example of a fish developing the capability to walk even though it spends its entire life in water where swimming would be the obvious method of locomotion. There is, as far as I know, no suggestion that it is an intermediate form towards land animals. Tiktaalik on the other hand, is considered an intermediate between fish and amphibians, which as you know spend time on both land and in water.

Do you have question about that?

rnna:

the whole point of my last post(s) was that the three/four of you are essentially running around in a circle throwing out contradictory statements just trying to shout me down.

I'm proposing that the mathematical probability of evolution is astoundingly ridiculous.

Almost all mathematicians agree that any probability beyond 1 in 1050 carries with it a mathematical certainty that it will never occur. (French expert on probability, Emile Borel)

So unless we're going to say that there is a better than 1 in 1050 chance that a single celled organism popped out of the goo, the entire argument is moot.

The simplest reproducing cell known to man is the H39 strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) which contains 625 proteins, with an average of 400 amino acids in each protein.

Mathematically the chances of this cell forming is 1 in 10 119,879

Here is a great link that describes how we've gotten to the theory of the first cell creation: The First Cell

The best quote is at the end:

But how did these proteins and other organic compounds form the first cell? It is not very clear, but most likely, a group of organic molecules including proteins, and primitive fatty acids formed into a droplet, or bubble-like structure, which had the ability to combine with external elements, such as proteins not a part of it. Eventually, these droplets would grow, and divide. These droplets would eventually evolve into the first true cell. These early cells would have been autotrophs, which are organism which produce their own energy, usually from sunlight. Some of these cells would then evolve into heterotrophs (organisms which ingest organic material as a nutrient source)

(emphasis mine)

wait a second... "It's not very clear, but most likely..." What the hell is that?

If I say that you scream "myth and superstition!"... but because this guy prefaced this statement with a bunch of science references it's suddenly ok to jump out there with something as ambiguous as that?

Please tell me your whole argument against the overwhelming odds AGAINST this process is not based on "but most likely".

Here is another linkEvolution from the Beginning

This one starts out with the same kind of vague reference of how they "think" it started.

The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began.

For one, we've only got 4 and half of those "billions" to play with. The "first membranes" forming is a complete guess at how the protein structures were able to jump into a cellular formation. There is NOTHING out there to back this up.

This whole thing reminds me of the global warming debate... you guys are all relying on the "everybody knows" conventional wisdom that usually is based on someone's WAG to connect the dots.

That's the big problem I have with just grabbing this and saying "Oh, there really is a possibility that it just happened by mistake". We CANNOT feasibly or mathmatically come to the logical conclusion of how this happened.

All the adaptation of species in the world doesn't even start until this little hiccup is overlooked and swept under the rug. Hence why it's theory... not law.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by gncnew]

[edit on 27-5-2010 by gncnew]

Originally posted by gncnew
The simplest reproducing cell known to man is the H39 strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) which contains 625 proteins, with an average of 400 amino acids in each protein.

Mathematically the chances of this cell forming is 1 in 10 119,879

Those might be the chances if you assume it popped out as is out of proper ingredients. However this is obviously not how it happened. It evolved gradually. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

First life on this planet wasn't cellular. More than likely it was autocatalytic RNA molecules (such we've already made in laboratories). Their sequences didn't code for proteins much like 16S or 23S-rDNA genes don't code proteins but ribosomal subunits that are made of RNA (but their function is protein like).

[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


But we're talking about life that could reproduce. Not the RNA that creates the life. DNA alone is not life, RNA alone is not life - they are what build life.

Even in the RNA World hypothesis it's still not "life" as defined by most evolutionary scientists because RNA alone doesn't interact with the environment.

There is absolutely nothing that gets us from "dumb" protein structures into photosynthetic membrane cells. We're all just "assuming" it happened - albeit not very sure on the "how" part.

Enter mathematical probabilities and you have a very solid case for a B.S. flag to waived high.


As a side note (and completely off topic) - has anyone ever heard or seen anything about someone trying to use RNA as a data storage mechanism? I was thinking about that the other day as I was reading about the pentaflop or whatever they just jumped in the processing world.

It's pretty amazing how far we've come in memory capacity with current tech lines - but we've not even touched the unreal capability of what could be stored in biological protein structures that are used as the building blocks of life.... Now THAT would be cool..

ROFL - it's bring a whole new meaning to the term "thumb drive"...

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

But we're talking about life that could reproduce. Not the RNA that creates the life. DNA alone is not life, RNA alone is not life - they are what build life.

Life is very difficult to define. If you define it as self-replicating entities that adapt to surroundings (by means of natural selection) then autocatalytic RNA-molecules are certainly alive.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

But we're talking about life that could reproduce. Not the RNA that creates the life. DNA alone is not life, RNA alone is not life - they are what build life.

Life is very difficult to define. If you define it as self-replicating entities that adapt to surroundings (by means of natural selection) then autocatalytic RNA-molecules are certainly alive.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

And in any case it is another step closer to true life.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

But we're talking about life that could reproduce. Not the RNA that creates the life. DNA alone is not life, RNA alone is not life - they are what build life.

Life is very difficult to define. If you define it as self-replicating entities that adapt to surroundings (by means of natural selection) then autocatalytic RNA-molecules are certainly alive.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

That's the RNA World theory, but that theory is (in my opinion) a cop out because they can't realistically figure out how RNA suddenly jumped into membranes -> thus a "cell" was born.

That's because there really isn't a definable mechanism for that without just accepting the completely absurd.

The further and further you follow the rabbit down the hole all you find is more questions. Every time they've taken this thing and tried to break it down to another level it gets completely obvious that what is being proposed is so far outside the realm of probable we're really discussing guesswork.

And then we're left with that all too looming question of..

"Where did all these elements and molecules come from?" and why have we not found RNA or amino acids on Mars? Because ONLY the gas combo of early earth can produce the molecules for amino acids?

Better yet - this theory then means it should be an inevitability that Venus is teaming with bacteria!

I bet it's not.

So, let's go back and really quick look at the astounding amount of cosmic odds we're talking about happening here.

1. Big bang (or whatever) explodes out stars and general funness.
2. Sun spinning and explodes again to blow out some satellites.
---- Enter in improbability A: a molten mass moves out to the "perfect" distance and settles in orbit instead of hurtling out to space or diving back to the sun. But - we at least have 8 other examples of this (if not in the "perfect" orbit).
3. Wash, Rinse, repeat (this had to happen a bunch of times successfully for our sun to actually be a sun and not a nebula).
---- Another improbability here, not a single collision big enough to just mess the whole party up? Wow - what luck!
4. Earth cools and develops an atmosphere that's heavy and stunningly carbon dioxide light...
----- So we didnt lose our atmosphere like Mars, but we didn't retain our carbon dioxide like Venus... huh.. wonder how that happened?
5. Between the early lack of oxygen and the super heated earth molecules sucked together to become RNA. Just in time to make that special, the atmosphere cools the hell down and sprouts oxygen.
----- Poor other planets... mathematical probabilities worked for them, but lucky Earth defies the odds!
6. For 3 Billion (that's 3 thousand millions for you public school kids) years, RNA sits and plays nice with itself and makes a happy little cell on earth.
----- we've discussed this ad nausium...
7. Suddenly, after 3 billion years, multi-celled organisms sprout up (for no explainable reason... were they just board after 3 billion years?)
----- riiiiight
8. Then an unprecedented profusion of life in incredibly complex forms began to fill the oceans, and even crawled out of the oceans!
----- Survival of the fittest doesn't explain this one at all, but whatev.
9. Then a mass extinction event occures and the big reset happens.
----- So it's massive enough to kill everything on the planet (roughly) but not massive enough to erradicate life on earth. Those darn little cells are so tough!
10. Wash, Rinse, Repeat
----- like clock work this happens again and again but somehow it's never quite enough to either A. Destroy the Planet or B. Change the planet enough to make "life" impossible (cough cough - Mars).

11. Then these complex life forms (after the last major extinction event) suddenly go so smart that in the last 5k years or so they have an unbelievable mental capacity to not just survive but to build civilization.
---------- Oh for the love of peanuts come on already - Humans are absurdly ill-equiped to survive without civilization yet somehow we lived long enough to get to that point?

-we can't normally have more than one baby
-our baby's can't do crap when they're born for the first 6 months
-We've got no natural weapons
-We're slow because we walk upright
-Our reproductive process is ABSURD (Darwin's theory skips this little gem)
-Our birth processes is even MORE ABSURD (Darwin - you sure about this "fittest" thing?)

Oh --- AND we are "lucky" enough to avoid one of those darn "extinction event" things long enough to get to this point. But just US! No other planets, no other life forms, at no other point in the history of the world.

As said before - the probabilities of all this occurring are beyond the realm of logic and reason and delve into pure blind faith.

So if you choose to have faith in this mind-numbing theory or in God I don't really care - but please quit telling me you are going with evolution because of "facts and evidence", because you're ignoring lots of other FACTS and EVIDENCE so you can believe your theory.

Originally posted by gncnew
That's the RNA World theory, but that theory is (in my opinion) a cop out because they can't realistically figure out how RNA suddenly jumped into membranes -> thus a "cell" was born.

If you aren't a biochemist or a molecular biologist your opinion concerning the matter is an uneducated one and thus irrelevant. However you can still contribute with comments concerning for example these articles:

Title: The two ages of the RNA world, and the transition to the DNA world: a story of viruses and cells
Author(s): Forterre, P
Source: BIOCHIMIE Volume: 87 Issue: 9-10 Pages: 793-803 Published: 2005

Title: Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: A hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain
Author(s): Forterre, P
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 103 Issue: 10 Pages: 3669-3674 Published: MAR 7 2006

Title: Genomics and early cellular evolution. The origin of the DNA world
Author(s): Forterre, P
Source: COMPTES RENDUS DE L ACADEMIE DES SCIENCES SERIE III-SCIENCES DE LA VIE-LIFE SCIENCES Volume: 324 Issue: 12 Pages: 1067-1076 Published: 2001

reply to post by gncnew

Um, where exactly was evolution directly observed?

Both in the lab and in the "wild". Pretty sure I already posted this here but just to be sure here it is again, the Wikipedia article on Speciation offering DIRECTLY OBSERVED examples where one species actually becomes another. Speciation, over time, is how one animal can become something quite different from its ancestors (ie dinosaurs becoming birds).

Speciation

If you don't understand the relevance of Tiktaalik to this discussion than you are truly lost as to how evolution works. Tiktaalik was one of the steps along the way from fish to amphibious land animals.

The misconception of Creationists is that things spontaneously become other things, like the famed crocoduck example... but that's not even how evolution works and honestly people defending the idea of magical creation have no right insulting the perceived "improbability" of the theory of Evolution.

I don't know for a fact you are neither a mathematician or a scientist, its just a guess. No scientist who actually studied the evidence could argue for Creationism and against Evolution. Even the religious scientists adapt their beliefs according to the EVIDENCE and that seems to be the main failure of Creationists.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


OMG... you seriously try to avoid everything. I say "no the sky is blue" and you say "the atmosphere on Mars makes it red!"

I didn't say Tiki fish was irrelevant, I said that rnna whined that a fish with legs would disprove the MES theory, yet Tiki exists and is a major part of evolutionary theory.

Second - if you've actually paid attention to what I've been saying and not just skimming through looking for the one thing you can try to pounce on you'd see that I've said all along that I believe in evolution from the standpoint that I think species have the ability to adapt to their environment.

The difference is that I think this is hard coded into the DNA or programming from a creator - not a random accident.

I also don't (obviously) subscribe to the Universal ancestor part of MES... call me crazy - but not every evolutionist does either.

Lastly -

Rino: I dont have be a pro football player to have an opinion on the game. You've got a ridiculous amount of opinions about all of this - are you a biochemist or a molecular biologist? If not, does that make your opinion concerning the matter is an uneducated one and thus irrelevant? How about Titen? How about MrXYZ?

Better yet, since you're obviously not a priest does that make your opinion about God uneducated and thus irrelevant?

When you resort to just name calling and/or become dismissive - it's a sure sign you've got nothing left to offer.

Ignore my main points and take minor details out of context all you want - it doesn't change the fact that not a single one of you has addressed the issue of mathematical improbability (impossibility?) of the evolutionary theory.

For a bunch of folks that consistently demand "proof and facts" you sure don't like those facts.

--------- The shrill screams get higher....

O.K. atheists, answer me this: Why do hundreds if not thousands of people get into accidents and die for about 90 minutes, then if they are true Christians meet God, Jesus, and several others and see the Kingdom of God and come back, and non-believers go to Hell and are tormented for so long and come back? Now for reference on the subject look for the books 90 minutes in Heaven and 23 minutes in Hell.

Originally posted by gncnew
Rino: I dont have be a pro football player to have an opinion on the game. You've got a ridiculous amount of opinions about all of this - are you a biochemist or a molecular biologist? If not, does that make your opinion concerning the matter is an uneducated one and thus irrelevant? How about Titen? How about MrXYZ?

Better yet, since you're obviously not a priest does that make your opinion about God uneducated and thus irrelevant?

Yes football is football. Hard science is hard science. Everybody knows football, but how many have deep understanding of chemistry, genetics, evo-devo, etc. (yes my field is close to all these)? It's not the same thing.

So far what we've seen of you (concerning this matter) is your opinion (of this hard science that you probably haven't studied) that the theory is wrong because of a claim you make. The claim itself is a bit of a straw man (I still hate it when people bring logical fallacies into debates) as nobody is thinking that "RNA suddenly jumped into membranes" (I believe there's a somewhat consensus that first membranes were self assembled/acquired via electric charge interactions).

Ignore my main points and take minor details out of context all you want - it doesn't change the fact that not a single one of you has addressed the issue of mathematical improbability (impossibility?) of the evolutionary theory.

For a bunch of folks that consistently demand "proof and facts" you sure don't like those facts.

See this is another straw man. When you set the parameters incorrectly (like you assume that some bacteria just jumped into existence as is) the results are meaningless.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]