It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution: Anyone care to Fill in the Huge Blank?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Fair enough but I do not believe that the Universe is infinite.


Personally I think its finite....


so if you kept going you would eventually hit some sort of wall or physical structure that stops you going any further? that makes less sense than an infinite universe.




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
mutations never put new information into the gene code. mutations only scramble, lose, or copy existing information.

Im sorry but this is incorrect. Mutations themselves are new information and they result in new changes to the proteins who's assembly code they alter.


so what happens if those "mutated, good genes" get mixed back in with the population? do they get lost?

? No, if they are beneficial, then they are spread thru the population.


edsinger
One classic experiment that is used to support the belief that life “built itself”, is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953.


The Miller-Urey experiment is an important one. I'm not clear as to whether they thought that they'd recreate life itself, or whether they were just trying to address the question of how amino-acids and the like can form, I think it was the latter, but I am not sure.

Regardless, the results of the experiment show that precursors to life, which everyone previously thought were 'immpossible' to form spontaneously, infact can form spontaneously.


The odds of these first amino acids forming in the exact combination are 10^100th power or so,

What? The experiment clearly shows that they can form naturally. Other experiements in auto-catalytic RNA have shown that certain types of genetic material might be able to form spontaneously also. No one expects a living cell to pop up out of raw atoms. There are going to have to be lots of 'stages' before that.


Personally I think its finite....

What cosmological experiments and mathematics have you done to support this statement? I mean, really, its just an opinion no, not even a supportable theory right?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   


Regardless, the results of the experiment show that precursors to life, which everyone previously thought were 'immpossible' to form spontaneously, infact can form spontaneously.


the Miller-Urey experiment resulted in a mixture that consisted of: 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, (both toxic to life) and 2% amino acids.
they filtered out the product (which by the way would not happen in nature, this is where intelligence has to come in). now if you made a mixture that was 98% toxic to the 2% you were trying to create, would you call that a success? its not.
the amino acids would bond to the water and to the tar and the acid much faster than they would with eachother (which is another reason they filtered the product.)



Mutations themselves are new information and they result in new changes to the proteins who's assembly code they alter.

id like to see an example of this.
so what you are saying is that if I was a person who was a mutant, I could have a tail. thats just silly. there are no examples of beneficial muations and even the public school textbooks never show benefical mutations.



What? The experiment clearly shows that they can form naturally.

like I said before, filtering out the product is not natural.



There are going to have to be lots of 'stages' before that.

if you have parts of a cell, its not going to grow and replicate. if you are missing enough parts to that cell, but not enough to destroy it, that cell is more likey to become like a cancer cell, uncontrolled growth of unhealthy/incomplete/bad cells. parts of a cell do not form the other parts of itself by itself.

about the universe, its probably something we will never be able to understand. it could be infinite or it would use other demensions to wrap around itself, meaning that if you traveled through space in a straight line, you would eventually end up were you started, kinda like running on a track.

EC



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
From Answers in Genesis, the quote that follows is part of their article on Arguments That [They] Think Creationists Shound Not Use.



‘There are no beneficial mutations.’ This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, ‘We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.’ For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes, New eyes for blind cave fish? and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?


The view that Miller-Urey experiments produce toxic compounds that are destructive to the biological precursors also produced in the experiments is a gross oversimplification of the constitution of the experiment.

See this Talk Origins page for an extremely simple response to your assertion.

Additionally, in my estimation, to say that the "filtered" product in the two-week long MU experiment is not in synchronization with the natural world is unfair at best. The natural world manipulates itself incessantly, without God's hand, through natural processes.

Zip



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   


The view that Miller-Urey experiments produce toxic compounds that are destructive to the biological precursors also produced in the experiments is a gross oversimplification of the constitution of the experiment.

See this Talk Origins page for an extremely simple response to your assertion.

Additionally, in my estimation, to say that the "filtered" product in the two-week long MU experiment is not in synchronization with the natural world is unfair at best. The natural world manipulates itself incessantly, without God's hand, through natural processes.


its unfair? you say that becuase it ruins your theory. plus they excluded oxygen, why? the earth has always had oxygen, even at the lowest layers of the geologic collumn there is oxygen present. this would cause the product to oxidize, and it wouldnt work.

the mixture was 98% toxic to the 2% they were trying to work with. also the product made was right handed and left handed amino acids. that wouldnt work either.

the experiment didnt work. they did get what they wanted, but they also got a lot of what they didnt want. and you can only filter out what you dont want, only if there is intelligence to do it.

EC



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Evolution Cruncher,

Question, I cant seem to get an answer so I would like you to read something,


Go here:

LINK

and scroll to the bottom of the very first post.

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead


A story about two friends from day one.


Can you follow this and comment? The Evolutionsist havent even responded to this one. They have on the 10 above that one but not this one...


What is your take?


[edit on 21-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   


Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.


We are alone.

The fact that "We are alone", simply can not be true.

Why?

Then who was telling our ancestors "Do not be afraid"?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   


edsinger


the only site I can direct you to is www.halos.com the scientists name is Robert Gentry. (I think thats how you spell his name.) but he explains this type of thing.

I know that this proves that the evolution theory of the earth is wrong. the earth was never a hot molten mass, and they cant even recreate this in the lab. they cant even recreate dirt. these polonium halos prove that the earth was never a hot molten mass. and I have nothing against these facts, he helps to disprove the evolution theory.



We are alone.

The fact that "We are alone", simply can not be true.

Why?

Then who was telling our ancestors "Do not be afraid"?


who are you refering do? God does not transmit a radio signal. im sure he could but that would probably confuse us into thinking that there are aliens out there.
In a sense you are right, we are not alone. God is with us, but we are alone in the sense that there are not other life forms roaming other planets.

EC

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
again, do you really believe that simply because something has not yet been discovered or quantified or proven as of today, that is necessarily follows that it will never be so?

If you believe that, what are all these scientists supposed to do now? sell shoes? paint houses? mow lawns?

I'm not positive but, I'm pretty sure that the search continues. Do you know how much of this very mud-ball we live on remains unexplored? I don't know of any archeologists or paleantogolists who can hold their breath long enough to dig on the ocean floor, several hundred or thousands of feet below the surface of the water - let alone, through several hundred feet of sediment.

That's the thing - science is still looking. Biblical literalists are not.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

the only site I can direct you to is www.halos.com the scientists name is Robert Gentry. (I think thats how you spell his name.) but he explains this type of thing.

I know that this proves that the evolution theory of the earth is wrong. the earth was never a hot molten mass, and they cant even recreate this in the lab. they cant even recreate dirt. these polonium halos prove that the earth was never a hot molten mass. and I have nothing against these facts, he helps to disprove the evolution theory.


First, Gehntry's work has been debunked several times in this forum. First and foremost his evidence is taken from a ke that crossed metamorphosed igneous rock and sedimentary rock in the Canadian shield. Also, I will have to read into it again but if i remeber right it wasn't even real granite but a calcite dike at that.

Secondly, what about gabbro and diorite? These are also igneous rocks. If there was rapid, spontaneous cooling as what is being touted by Gehntry, we would see these halos in them as well.

The point of there being a lot of granite on every continent, There was an event (I believe it is classified as an orogeny but 100% sure on that) where we see a large amount of granite being created worldwide. This is considered to be due to trapped radioactive heat that melted the conitental and oceanic crusts. Granite would also be the first to show through the crust since it forms at the top of the batholith with cooler temperatures and less pressure.

What about bake zones and xenoliths that we find in batholiths and lacolithes that show the magma body moved into the cooler, already solidified country rock.

What about pegmatites (Basically igneous rock with large crystallized sections of minerals, such as biotite, musciovite, hornblende etc) Lab test have shown that it would take a long time and a large magma body for these to form.

ALL the geologic evidence proves the earth is older than 6000 years. There is no evidence of it being a quick "Poof, we have world".


[edit on 22-8-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Evolution Cruncher, thanks for responding to my post. Although I see you only chose to respond to one small portion of it, I suppose that's better than nothing.

I would like to opine again that the "handedness of the proteins" is irrelevant.

While we have a long way to go to discover and then prove the exact mechanics of abiogenesis, it is indisputable that abiogenesis cannot be proven to be false.

I would also say again, as I have here before, that the toxicity level of the MU experiments is meaningless and while you continue to contend that some 2% of the output of the experiment is absolutely negligible, I will remind you that this output is a nonzero amount, and thus, the experiments are successful.

Zip



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   


That's the thing - science is still looking. Biblical literalists are not.


I would keep in mind that about 45 of todays scientists are christians. so to say that biblicists are not looking for scientific evidence would not be a very accurate statement. there are plenty of scientists that support creation.

Zipdot.

if you want to believe that the toxicity of the product is irrelivant then you can believe that all you want. but the fact is that they produced a product that was 98 toxic to the 2% they were trying to create. thats is not a success.

they produced righit-handed and left-handed amino acids together when they cannot be directly together. and if you want to assume that the toxic part of the product can be naturally filtered out by itself without help, (scientist/intelligence) you are welcome to believe that also.

if you want to believe all of this can happen over billions of years, you can believe that also.
if you want to believe that a bacteria can evolve into everything we see today over millions of years, thats is your belief, not science. you cant even make a prediction based off of the evidence seen today.

EC



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   


I would keep in mind that about 45 of todays scientists are christians.


How many scientists are there? Thousands? 45 isnt really alot...

Or do you mean percent?

That makes more sense. However even though 45% of scientists are Christian you tend to find that around 98% of them support evolution.

Name one positive contribution to the field of evolution made by a creationist scientist.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by Uncle Joe]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
now if you made a mixture that was 98% toxic to the 2% you were trying to create, would you call that a success? its not.

It certainly was a success, it demonstrated that amino acids and organic precursors can form in an abiotic environment. The tars and other stuff wasn't toxic to the amino acids. Besides, 'tar' just means a mass of difficult to identify organic compounds, and can often come out of a complex solution of organic chemicals, as a by-product.


the amino acids would bond to the water and to the tar and the acid much faster than they would with eachother (which is another reason they filtered the product.)

Which demonstrates that Miller-Urey did not create life from non-life, which I don't think was ever the intent anyway.



id like to see an example of this.

That is what mutations are.


so what you are saying is that if I was a person who was a mutant, I could have a tail. thats just silly.

What's silly is reading that from 'mutations later the genetic code and thus have an affect on the proteins produced by the affected portion of the code'.

there are no examples of beneficial muations

Are mutations harmful?
And a general article on the subject
The Evolution of Improved Fitness

and even the public school textbooks never show benefical mutations.

I suggest that if you are really interested in evolution and biology, that you look beyond high school text books. High School textbooks are not primary scientific literature.

like I said before, filtering out the product is not natural.

This is irrelevant. Before this experiment was done, people insisted that you can't get amino acids without living things. The experiement demonstrates that you can.

if you have parts of a cell, its not going to grow and replicate. if you are missing enough parts to that cell, but not enough to destroy it, that cell is more likey to become

if you take a modern living cell and start pulling parts out of it, sure, its going to have problems. Evolutionary theory doesn't hypothesize that things were floating around with gaping holes in them tho, or lacking entire organelles that other organelles were interdependant upon.


plus they excluded oxygen, why? the earth has always had oxygen

At the earliest stages of the earth's evolution, there wasn't lots of free oxygen like there is today.

the mixture was 98% toxic to the 2% they were trying to work with.

This way of saying it doesn't make sense. The other stuff isn't 'toxic' to amino acids, the acids were able to form in this mixture. Nuff Said.

the experiment didnt work. they did get what they wanted, but they also got a lot of what they didnt want

Welcome to the wonderful world of synthetic organic chemistry.

and you can only filter out what you dont want, only if there is intelligence to do it.

That doesn't make sense, sand particles get filtered according to size without intelligence, and organic chemicals seperate from aqueously soluble chemicals without intelligence, heck micelles can form in scummy reactions and they can filter out the amino acids and other precursors, into cell like lipid-spheres nonetheless! Filtration and seperation of products does not require intelligence.

there are plenty of scientists that support creation.

There are, infact, very few. Especially if you disclude non-scientists who claim to be scientists, like Hovind.

45 of todays scientists are christians. so to say that biblicists are not looking for scientific evidence would not be a very accurate statement.

I assume you mean 45% no? Anyway, its extremely inaccurate to say that merely because a person is a christian, and is a scientist, that they are biblicist looking to support 'scientific creationism'. Most (more or less) scientists are christians, an extraordinarily small proportion of scientists are any kind of Creationists.

edsinger
The Evolutionsist havent even responded to this one. They have on the 10 above that one but not this one...

What question? This is at the bottom "The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant. " and it has been refuted.

Robert Gentry. (I think thats how you spell his name.) but he explains this type of thing.

Gentry's research has been refuted.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I suppose the following case can be argued as well in defense of the experiment. Take the earth and the atmosphere that surrounds it. Less than 2% of this material is living, wouldn't you say?

Of all of the nonliving material, how much is harmful to life? I'd say a large portion, taking into consideration the earth's molten core and all of the topical hazards and whatnot.

Just thinking out loud.

Zip



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
but we are alone in the sense that there are not other life forms roaming other planets.

EC






???!!!???

I'm going to have to call BS on that one.

May I see your passport?



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I played nice for as long as I could! The Evolutionist get to ignore the obvious flaws in their point of view. However they insist that the Creationist (like me) prove Every detail of our position...


Instead of manifold digressions into etiology, for once explain something useful in terms of the creationist position. But of course, every effort to "prove every detail" of a position is made by science, which you are claiming for creationism. Now, this is simplistic, not even dealing with the complexities of life.

To Wit:

A snowflake is perfectly explicable in terms of natural phenomena, of natural science. And the process of its formation is replicable in the laboratory and explained in terms of intermolecular forces and meteorology. Certainly, the order observed in such an ice crystal is often remarkable. Yet it is not necessary to invoke an intelligent creator to explain the crystallization process in the atmosphere.

If ID or CS is actually science, then explain the role of the creator and the effects of a creator's presence on snowflake formation. What is the evidence for your conclusions? How do snowflakes form in such a disordered environment as the interior of a cloud? And why is it that the weather that produces snow is ordered, yet chaotic enough to often defy prediction? Of course not only must the design be proved, but also define the mechanisms from the creation through to the final fall of the flake (in terms of intelligent design only). That is, explain every step of the process of the intelligent design of a snowflake by a creator and exactly what the creator does at each part of the process. Why? Compare your results with the meteorological explanation.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   


How many scientists are there? Thousands? 45 isnt really alot...

Or do you mean percent?

That makes more sense. However even though 45% of scientists are Christian you tend to find that around 98% of them support evolution.


yeah I forgot the % sign.
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job. there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution. many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.

EC



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher


How many scientists are there? Thousands? 45 isnt really alot...

Or do you mean percent?

That makes more sense. However even though 45% of scientists are Christian you tend to find that around 98% of them support evolution.


yeah I forgot the % sign.
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job. there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution. many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.

EC


Not really, most support it because it's biological fact.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and they probably claim to support evolution only to keep their job.


This is absurd. Scientists by nature tend to display a certain level of integrity in support of their academic convictions.


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there have been many cases where people got fired for believing in ID or creation and not evolution. many teachers have been fired and many scientists have been dismissed just because of what they believe in.


This is ridiculous. I should remind you that in most countries when religious intolerance conflicts with a person's income, a crime has been committed. Do you think such shafted scientists and teachers lack the brainpower and conviction to litigate over their losses? I think it is imprudent to spread such false "anti-evolutionist" propaganda.

It may interest you to know that arguably the most powerful man in America, the President of the U.S., is Christian. The "creationist" community is a powerful force and does not tolerate intolerance. Why are you out to make "evolutionists" bad people? They are not categorically bad people.

Zip







 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join