The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

a reply to: cooperton

SOOOO ....

Rather than excepting the possibility of "life" finding a way to sustain itself over million or even billions of years, you choose to believe some guy scooped up a pile of dirt and blew on it.

Oh, rather than I guy, I guess I should have said, one of about fifty little clay figurines which a tribe of goat herders worshiped a few thousand years ago.

Whatever isn't impossible *is* possible. That is all.

4.5 billion years and such a steady, slow evolution = the biology we see around us. There is no contradiction anywhere.

Show us something what could not have happened. But that is impossible, as it *has happened*. Somewhere. Sometime. Maybe 1.5 million years ago, maybe 1.6 million years, could be 16 million, too. No one cared, because there was no one who could care.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: cooperton

SOOOO ....

Rather than excepting the possibility of "life" finding a way to sustain itself over million or even billions of years, you choose to believe some guy scooped up a pile of dirt and blew on it.

Oh, rather than I guy, I guess I should have said, one of about fifty little clay figurines which a tribe of goat herders worshiped a few thousand years ago.

I would love to argue the science with you but you offer no rebuttal.

Also, it is not wise to scrutinize a book you haven't read.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Whatever isn't impossible *is* possible. That is all.

4.5 billion years and such a steady, slow evolution = the biology we see around us. There is no contradiction anywhere.

Show us something what could not have happened. But that is impossible, as it *has happened*. Somewhere. Sometime. Maybe 1.5 million years ago, maybe 1.6 million years, could be 16 million, too. No one cared, because there was no one who could care.

Your logic is: "it exists, therefore evolution did it". You realize this is the same logic as "God did it"?

At least "God did it" implies intelligence and mathematics in the creation, which we see all around us (and within us). "evolution did it" implies that intelligence came from randomness which is illogical.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: cooperton

SOOOO ....

Rather than excepting the possibility of "life" finding a way to sustain itself over million or even billions of years, you choose to believe some guy scooped up a pile of dirt and blew on it.

Oh, rather than I guy, I guess I should have said, one of about fifty little clay figurines which a tribe of goat herders worshiped a few thousand years ago.

I would love to argue the science with you but you offer no rebuttal.

Also, it is not wise to scrutinize a book you haven't read. It comes off as foolish.

And which book might it be which, you know, does not grace the shelves of my library.

Could it be the "Holy Bible" or maybe the "Evolution of Species". Or possibly something on the " Particles and Waves" ?

Or could it be you really know nothing about my education or reading back ground and simply wish to dismiss an alternate view with which you do not agree.

originally posted by: tinymind

And which book might it be which, you know, does not grace the shelves of my library.

Could it be the "Holy Bible" or maybe the "Evolution of Species". Or possibly something on the " Particles and Waves" ?

Or could it be you really know nothing about my education or reading back ground and simply wish to dismiss an alternate view with which you do not agree.

Your crude comment about a man blowing into a scoop of dirt led me to believe you had never read the narrative you were citing. The narrative you are referring to is also a long book, further insisting on the probability you had not actually read what you were scrutinizing. Your mockery of a book that is dear to other people is an unwelcoming aspect to any sort of dialogue. It is also irrelevant to this thread. Analytical scrutiny of theology is certainly welcome and can be productive, but this thread is meant to analyze the impossibility of evolution, which your post produced no sort of productive rebuttal.

I should have known not to pay your troll toll.

a reply to: cooperton

Had you ever considered that in order to determine what is possible or impossible there has to be an application of logic?

To say something is impossible would suggest you have exhausted all possible logical situations which would support said thing from being. To say something is possible only requires it's physical presents to be observed.

In the case of life; we are here so life must be possible. The answer to the question as to how we got here should then be based upon a logical train of arguments, or discussions, which will lead to a logical conclusion of our existance. If all arguments, or discussion, leads to an illogical conclusion then we can not be here to make such discussions possible.

You speak of a book, from which much of your argument is drawn, and logic as if both are compatable. The "church" has spent years trying to discourage logic being applied and insisted that belief is the only route to their doctrine.

So, which is it, logic or dogma?

The fact that people argue about evolution instead of abiogensis just shows that they haven't actually done their homework on the subject.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: cooperton

You speak of a book, from which much of your argument is drawn, and logic as if both are compatable. The "church" has spent years trying to discourage logic being applied and insisted that belief is the only route to their doctrine.

So, which is it, logic or dogma?

None of my argument presented in the OP is contingent on religion.

In the case of life; we are here so life must be possible. The answer to the question as to how we got here should then be based upon a logical train of arguments, or discussions, which will lead to a logical conclusion of our existance. If all arguments, or discussion, leads to an illogical conclusion then we can not be here to make such discussions possible.

I logically presented the case that random mutation is incapable of culminating the complex anatomical structures present in life, due to the interdependence of macromolecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems. Evolution cannot explain how these functions, which are dependent on other functions, could have possibly increased in complexity alongside eachother simply from mutative genetic alterations. Expose any living animal to a mutagen, and see the intense pathological dysfunction they go through. X-men is fiction.

a reply to: cooperton

I see it is another thread of yours where you pervert the scientific method so that you can selectively choose points while ignoring the mountain of evidence that contradicts you all so you can attempt to tell the world your confirmation biases.

I see you are hitting all the Creationist "greatest hits" too. Like bringing up the already debunked "the human eye is too complicated to have evolved" argument. And of course there is the standard appeal to emotion fallacy that beauty = god. Oh yeah and no Creationist fallacy fest can be complete without bringing up Darwin, a scientist from the 1800's, to talk about science of today. I'm actually surprised you didn't say the "Evolution is only a theory" cop out. But I'm sure it will be said more than a few times during the 50 pages this thread will go while you guys stubbornly refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts you that a parade of people will present before getting frustrated and giving up.

a reply to: cooperton

Let me begin by say that we have no way to "know" when chemistry became biology. That is to say when, and by what process, the chemicals which make up the various parts of our genes and other cellular structures came together. Then began to replicate and divide, to become living beings.

It is also not known how often this replication and division took place. Current best estimates, under laboratory conditions, is approx. 20 to 30 minutes. But this is only among the specimens which are under study and such could not be confidently said about all species on earth. Each time this replication and division is accomplished, there is the potential for slight mistakes, or mutations to happen. As the environment of these cells is very wide and varied, some of these mutations can be helpful while others could be benign or even deadly.

If the average time for replication has been 30 minutes since the beginning, postulated only because some number is needed for calculation, and there have been @17520 such events each year for the past 3.75 billion years; there has been @65,700,000,000,000,000,000 chances of some favorable mutations to bring about some type of life which we can identify.

Remember this is only "speculation" on my part as I was not there to witness these events as they took place.

As to any one component within a living body being dependent upon another. Any mutation which would have an effect upon one part would also have an effect upon others which are also involved. Given enough time and possible mutations, almost any variations will have a cascading effect on an organism as a whole. What ever is needed for the organism to survive will be addressed and, even though changed ever so slightly, the organism lives on.

This will be true for any living being or parts of said being. All the changes needed for it to survive and function, which may not as yet have happened, will take place when the environment requires that adaptation.

All the situations which you have named have come about because of the need for "live" to adapt to its surroundings. It has always been so and it will continue to be so until there is a change to swift and radical for any mutations to adapt.

a reply to: cooperton

Double post (sorry)

a reply to: tinymind

Let me begin by say that we have no way to "know" when chemistry became biology. That is to say when, and by what process, the chemicals which make up the various parts of our genes and other cellular structures came together. Then began to replicate and divide, to become living beings.

Scientists can't even reliably define what it means for something to be alive. At what point is something actually alive? Is organic material alive? If not, then at what makeup of organic material can we claim that it is alive? Does it need a brain? But wouldn't that mean that plants wouldn't be alive? Does the organism need to perform a function? If so, are cells alive?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tinymind

Let me begin by say that we have no way to "know" when chemistry became biology. That is to say when, and by what process, the chemicals which make up the various parts of our genes and other cellular structures came together. Then began to replicate and divide, to become living beings.

Scientists can't even reliably define what it means for something to be alive. At what point is something actually alive? Is organic material alive? If not, then at what makeup of organic material can we claim that it is alive? Does it need a brain? But wouldn't that mean that plants wouldn't be alive? Does the organism need to perform a function? If so, are cells alive?

It has also been postulated that "anything which I have not experienced does not exist".

IF this be true, then no one who posts any writing upon this, which is shown on my monitor, as a page exists. Only the words on the monitor screen.

There are essentially two games which many people play.

One is with themselves; it goes like would'a - could'a - should'a.
This is how they attempt to rationalize the events which take place in their lives.

The other they play on others; it goes like IF.
They play this in order to attempt to give themselves status and bring meaning into their lives.

IF you ask IF enough times the other person will undoubtedly run out of answers and this make you appear superior because you have more questions than they have answers. Most rational people are well aware of this being the case and will not play this game for very long, because IF has not answer. It is only useful as a hyperbolic substitute for the lack of insight.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your post reminded me if this trek gem, only the first minute matters.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

I see it is another thread of yours where you pervert the scientific method

The scientific method is based on empirical observation. Most of my claims in the original post are empirical fact, and I do give my opinion on the matter periodically.

I see you are hitting all the Creationist "greatest hits" too. Like bringing up the already debunked "the human eye is too complicated to have evolved" argument. And of course there is the standard appeal to emotion fallacy that beauty = god. Oh yeah and no Creationist fallacy fest can be complete without bringing up Darwin, a scientist from the 1800's, to talk about science of today. I'm actually surprised you didn't say the "Evolution is only a theory" cop out. But I'm sure it will be said more than a few times during the 50 pages this thread will go while you guys stubbornly refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts you that a parade of people will present before getting frustrated and giving up.

There were many responses throughout this thread that addressed actual points in the OP, you should do the same rather than taking krazy sh0ts at a generalized group of people.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: cooperton

Let me begin by say that we have no way to "know" when chemistry became biology. That is to say when, and by what process, the chemicals which make up the various parts of our genes and other cellular structures came together. Then began to replicate and divide, to become living beings.

I want to address the requirements of that leap, but it will be in another post so I will only summarize here. The monumentous leap from a chemical slew into a living organism is called abiogenesis, and is a required precedent to evolution. Abiogenesis would require all of the following:

Replication, metabolism, RNA synthesis, protein translation, a cellular barrier (i.e. cell wall or phospholipid bilayer) and homeostatic mechanisms. All of these are required to be synchronized, because replication cannot happen without RNA synthesis and protein translation to make the necessary proteins to actually parse the DNA/RNA to replicate its genetics in order, but the theoretical rudimentary cell is incapable of doing this without ATP/energy (from metabolism), and ATP/energy is not created without an electron transport chain:



Yet the electron transport chain can't work without a cellular barrier, or integrated proteins created through transcription and translation of genetic code. It gets much more in-depth when you consider homeostatic mechanisms that are required to prevent the organism from producing too much or too little of each of the above mentioned aspects.

Shouldn't the word, 'Scientific' be in quotes in the title??

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: cooperton

Instead, I'll just leave this video here, of ACTUAL, visual and undeniable proof of mutation, selection and survival of the fittest:

That is a great video that does for sure demonstrate how an organism adapts to its' surroundings. It does not however demonstrate the origin of a new species.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

I see it is another thread of yours where you pervert the scientific method

The scientific method is based on empirical observation. Most of my claims in the original post are empirical fact, and I do give my opinion on the matter periodically.

In all my years on ATS I have literally never seen you correctly use the Scientific Method to prove a point. This thread included. Heck even this rebuttal you just used against me shows you don't understand how the Scientific Method works. Where is your falsifiable hypothesis (nonexistent because you refuse to consider that you could possibly wrong)? Where is the testing and experimentation you did? I guess this thread could work as the peer review, but you don't accept peer review.

Here's the thing though. This entire thread operates under the standard false equivalency that if evolution == false, then the Christian god and the Creationism myth in the bible == true. That isn't science. That's just bad logic. Proving evolution false doesn't prove your god true or his stories true.

There were many responses throughout this thread that addressed actual points in the OP, you should do the same rather than taking krazy sh0ts at a generalized group of people.

Meh. I've danced this dance before with you. Literally every one of these points has been argued and debunked for you before, so I already know that correcting you is a waste of time.

Of course you start with common Darwin quote mines taken out of context and exaggerated. It looks like you are stepping up your game, Coop, but you really need to come up with new arguments that haven't already been dissected and refuted. I don't mean any offense by that, but these are the same things we've already heard dozens of times.

Basically the argument is: Life is too complex with too much functionality to have occurred or developed naturally, yet you have done nothing to demonstrate conclusively that any organ or feature could not have arisen in incremental stages. You have basically just said, "Look at THAT!! How do you explain THAT?" while offering no explanation yourself. The eye one has already been studied extensively and verified. Appealing to complexity does not prove anything other than it's complex. 4 billions years of constant change can do that.

You probably should avoid the word "impossible" as well because it's clear you have no idea what that means or how to demonstrate such.

For example, a heart is useless without lungs, and lungs are useless without a heart. The acid-resistant lining of your stomach is irrelevant without the production of stomach acid, stomach acid is deadly without the acid-resistant stomach lining. A receptor is lame without a ligand, and a ligand is erroneous without a receptor to receive its signal. These processes require all parts of the system to be in place for it to work. Because evolution relies on piece-by-piece, sequential transformations, this could not have possibly created these complex systems that require all pieces to be set.

First off - excellent thread! I might also add, very well presented. Just the quotes above is more than enough to prove and point the inescapable fact of the "impossibility of evolution". Yet facts like these don't matter because they point to creation. And proponents of evolution will not and can't successfully dispute it.

In fact, if we follow the evolutionary ladder, it's the case of what came first. And the ladder doesn't go anywhere because the rungs of the ladder are MISSING - as in missing link.

In addition, if we really want to honest about it - the ladder doesn't exist - except I guess only the imagination of its proponents.