Links from redsky that disprove evolution

Redsky
Redsky's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Links from redsky that disprove evolution

(SPLIT OFF FROM THE WRONG THREAD)

I was hoping to help you out here, but I can't find any links that prove evolution. Sorry.

I can find a couple that disprove it if that's any good...

This first article proves that life can't start on its own.

http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4348/

This second article proves that even if life could start on its own, the first protein wouldn't appear until about 5 billion years time. (It takes 60,000 of these proteins in about 200 complex bondings to make up a simple living cell.

http://www.redskynews.com/books/imp-317.pdf

This means that life couldn't possibly have started on its own and there hasn't been enough time for macro evolution to take place either.

Hope that helps.

 


TheAtheistPaladin
TheAtheistPaladin's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
http://www.youtube.com/watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gVf_yDDV4

There I prove common ancestory with chimps in under 2 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKsMsz6dBac

chadagg does a pretty dam good job of showing our realationship to Neanderthals.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins


Dodoo
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Becoming Human

deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, the fact that I have

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Researchers witness natural

Researchers witness natural selection at work in dramatic comeback of male butterflies. 

http://www.physorg.com/news103469691.html

Researchers discover evidence of very recent human adaptation

http://www.physorg.com/news103381323.html

 Swapping genes to change species.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/28/bacteria_hea.html?category=health 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Pathofreason
Superfan
Pathofreason's picture
Posts: 320
Joined: 2006-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Great study going on at the Georgia Tech!

WormGetsItsWings
WormGetsItsWings's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-08-22
User is offlineOffline
http://talkorigins.org/index

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

A list of several popular creationist claims along with responses for each one.

"On mine honour, my friend, [...] there is nothing of all that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hell. Thy soul will be dead even sooner than thy body; fear, therefore, nothing any more!"

- from Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
I recommend

I recommend

http://evolution.berkeley.edu

It explains everything very simply, and offers tons of empirical proof for evolution. Here is one of my blog posts that I believe proves evolution beyond any reasonable doubt:

http://gillslits.blogspot.com/2007/09/endogenous-retroviruses-prove-evolution.html 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  Pulled this article from

 

Pulled this article from Natural History. It provides various examples of natural selection in action, including the Galapagos finches. There is also some discussion about speciation in sockeye salmon by way of reproductive isolation.

 

http://files.meetup.com/217965/Jonathan-Weiner.pdf 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline

Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Ceaser

LeftofLarry wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:
Chaoslord2004 wrote:
Oh man, the Evolution of Language sounds kickass. Anything that has to do with Linguistics interests me 8-)
you're scary..hahah..just kiddin'.
Oh yeah? Why is that? :lol:
your impassioned interest in philosophy/linguistics/logic etc...it's great I think. But I humbly don't understand much of it. so you're scary..hahahah..... :D

Linguistics is Kickass try this simply experiment. Imagine two cavemen sitting around a fire, about 46,000 BCE- give or take a few days, we'll call them Gus and Louie, they're wondering what to call this long stringy stuff growing out of their heads. Louie takes a lock between his thumb and index finger and rubs it over his ear, he grunts out the sound he hears and a new word is invented "seesar", Gus does the same experiment and hears the same result, A scientific test confirming the first result, or plagerisim. Is your hair still as long as in the photo Larry? Try it. CEASER means "hairy", our word hair comes from an early french pronunciation of 'seesar' into 'scheesair' anglo/saxons turned that into 'hair' and also part it of into 'shear' and 'share'. Once upon a time a Roman General named Gaius Julian became so famous his nickname CEASER "hairy man" came to mean Emperor, in German Kaiser in Russian Tsar.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A is both wrong and

A is both wrong and irrelevant.
B is also wrong and irrelevant.

Links provided in this very topic conveniently refute both arguments before you even presented them, so that's all the effort this foolishness deserves.

Hope it helps.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The first link only contains

The first link only contains arguments against abiogenesis, not evolution. 

Quote:
For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.

Jesus, what is this, like the 1 quadrillionth time we've all heard this stupid probability argument? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Redsky
Redsky's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Post your links proving evolution

OK, sorry chaps. My links were a bit unkind and uncalled for.

 

I wish you all the best and I hope you wipe out the "Christian" hatred.

 

God Bless

 

Redsky

Carrier of The Word Of God


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And we wish you the best at

And we wish you the best at dragging yourself out of the primordial muck, ridding yourself of the need to make bullshit claims with a steaming pile of sarcasm as the side dish.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
At least he didn't talk

At least he didn't talk about a banana proving god.

Or the fact that we don't find life growing in a new jar of peanut butter disproving abiogenesis.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
What you are actually asking

What you are actually asking about is not really evolution, but the origin of life.

It is much harder to prove, but there are a few good theories on it which are being worked on.

How about you work through all of those links up there to start with.

As for evolution itself: in the 150 years today since Origin of Species was published (the first proof) there has been constant research that supports it and none that disprove it.

I don't recall anyone in this thread making any hateful comments about Christians and you did not state that you were one, so calling us Christian haters is a bit uncalled for, although typical.

I don't hate Christians, I have friends and family who are Christians and I love them.

I do hate religion though.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:What you are


ronin-dog wrote:

What you are actually asking about is not really evolution, but the origin of life.

It is much harder to prove, but there are a few good theories on it which are being worked on.

How about you work through all of those links up there to start with.

As for evolution itself: in the 150 years today since Origin of Species was published (the first proof) there has been constant research that supports it and none that disprove it.

I don't recall anyone in this thread making any hateful comments about Christians and you did not state that you were one, so calling us Christian haters is a bit uncalled for, although typical.

I don't hate Christians, I have friends and family who are Christians and I love them.

I do hate religion though.

 

agreed people seems to confuse abiogenesis with evolution 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:ronin-dog

Adventfred wrote:


ronin-dog wrote:

What you are actually asking about is not really evolution, but the origin of life.

It is much harder to prove, but there are a few good theories on it which are being worked on.

How about you work through all of those links up there to start with.

As for evolution itself: in the 150 years today since Origin of Species was published (the first proof) there has been constant research that supports it and none that disprove it.

I don't recall anyone in this thread making any hateful comments about Christians and you did not state that you were one, so calling us Christian haters is a bit uncalled for, although typical.

I don't hate Christians, I have friends and family who are Christians and I love them.

I do hate religion though.

 

agreed people seems to confuse abiogenesis with evolution 

They also believe that if they could disprove evolution that it would automatically prove "Magic man done it".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Redsky wrote:This first

Redsky wrote:

This first article proves that life can't start on its own.

Well then I guess that proves that God can't exist since he would have had to start his existence on his own.

Hope that helps.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Redsky
Redsky's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Sounds good enough to

Sounds good enough to eat!!!

 

Got a question. As evolution on this planet is impossible, is it true that a super race of aliens somewhere else in the universe, evolved in a Darwinian manner and then created life and planted it here on earth like Richard Dawkins claims?

And is this what rational thinking is about?

 

Excuse me while I just pick myself up off the floor....

Carrier of The Word Of God


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Redsky wrote:Sounds good

Redsky wrote:

Sounds good enough to eat!!!

 

Got a question. As evolution on this planet is impossible, is it true that a super race of aliens somewhere else in the universe, evolved in a Darwinian manner and then created life and planted it here on earth like Richard Dawkins claims?

And is this what rational thinking is about?

 

Excuse me while I just pick myself up off the floor....

Citing Duane Gish doesn't make evolution impossible but thanks for playing.

Dawkins doesn't claim it . He brought it up as a example of "intelligent design" that makes more sense than creationism. Please remove your skull from Ben Stein's sphincter.

Why is that possibility less valid than your "My magic God done it"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Evolution on this planet is

Evolution on this planet is not only possible, it is a totally observable, many times proven fact.

The people you are listening to purposefully misquote and twist what people say (such as Dawkins) to make ridicule of them. Think about that. That is the kind of team you are supporting.

There is no evidence against evolution, and if there was it would still not prove God. There is no evidence for God.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Redsky wrote:Sounds good

Redsky wrote:

Sounds good enough to eat!!!

 

Got a question. As evolution on this planet is impossible, is it true that a super race of aliens somewhere else in the universe, evolved in a Darwinian manner and then created life and planted it here on earth like Richard Dawkins claims?

And is this what rational thinking is about?

Excuse me while I just pick myself up off the floor....

Evolution is inevitable, once life emerges with imperfect inheritance mechanisms, which allow it to change.

What was being argued was that that life itself could not emerge from non-living matter, ie, 'abiogenesis', NOT evolution, the standard confusion of creationism.

This ignores the FACT that recent discoveries continue to lower the bar for the spontaneous emergence of the precursors for life, ie it is only a matter of probabilities. The best any opponent of abiogenesis can 'rationally' claim is low probability on any given planet, not impossibility.

Which cannot be confidently said for the spontaneous emergence of an infinite, sentient creator critter.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gVf_yDDV4

There I prove common ancestory with chimps in under 2 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKsMsz6dBac

chadagg does a pretty dam good job of showing our realationship to Neanderthals.

I can name that tune in 1 note(showing my age here)

It is even LESS complicated than that. Darwin saw what any moron with eyes should see without their magical goggles on. Look at a domestic house cat and a tiger and lion. ONLY an idiot would try to claim that they were magically made on the same day and named by Adam.

I love it when theists try to pull science into it.

"Even if" is the backpeddle, then they quote some molecular issue, or atom issue, pretending or ignoring that BRAINS are material. And want us to forget that this is a distraction away from "Pay no attention to the fantastic claims"

Since that is the case and they accept that brains are material and THEY bring science into it, then they have to admit that they have no evidence for invisible non-material super brains.

So yea, talk about science. But when you bring it up don't pretend it justifies your pet invisible friend.

There never was an invisible magical super brain with super powers. Discussing unfalsifiable, unreplicatable, untestable claims is no different than claiming the earth is flat or that Thor makes lighting. It only proves that you have a claim.

I forgot which founder said this, "To talk of the immaterial is to talk of nothingness"

Claiming a god is a naked assertion.

Jefferson said, "Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them"

To understand how indistinguishable one's own pet deity is to another debate another theist. What should emerge is that the MOTIF is the same. "My magical invisible super brain with super powers will swoop down and save the chosen people(convienently that of the claimant).

So yea, bring science into it, we love it, because reason would dictate a falsifiable test beyond one's own claim.

The Christian using science will lead you to the bible which makes scientifically absurd claims the contradict reality. The Jew will quote science trying to lead you to their invisible magical super hero. And the Muslim will use science to lead you to Allah. What none of them have is a lab setting to test their pet gods and falsify them.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Redsky
Redsky's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
I cited Charles McCombs in

I cited Charles McCombs in the one document and Hubert Yockey is cited in the evolution is biologically impossible document.

 

I'm wondering if Ben Stein has British ancestory. He did a marvelous job of using understatement in that interview and even maintained his composure when things got extraterrestrial. 

 

Sorry folks, but Richard Dawkins is all washed up here in the UK which is why he is now trying to make a few dollars inflicting his fictional works on you good people.

Carrier of The Word Of God


Redsky
Redsky's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Redsky

BobSpence1 wrote:

Redsky wrote:

Sounds good enough to eat!!!

 

Got a question. As evolution on this planet is impossible, is it true that a super race of aliens somewhere else in the universe, evolved in a Darwinian manner and then created life and planted it here on earth like Richard Dawkins claims?

And is this what rational thinking is about?

Excuse me while I just pick myself up off the floor....

Evolution is inevitable, once life emerges with imperfect inheritance mechanisms, which allow it to change.

What was being argued was that that life itself could not emerge from non-living matter, ie, 'abiogenesis', NOT evolution, the standard confusion of creationism.

This ignores the FACT that recent discoveries continue to lower the bar for the spontaneous emergence of the precursors for life, ie it is only a matter of probabilities. The best any opponent of abiogenesis can 'rationally' claim is low probability on any given planet, not impossibility.

Which cannot be confidently said for the spontaneous emergence of an infinite, sentient creator critter.

 

OK. The point I was trying to make is that because it is biologically impossible for life to start on it's own which the first document I referenced does prove, and because even if life could start on it's own then there hasn't been enough time for even the first protein to evolve which the second document I referenced does prove, then that derails the entire theory.

 

 

Carrier of The Word Of God


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
xould some of your mistaken

Would some of your mistaken views in other sciences be based on the geocentrism you espouse?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
 This thread kills me.

 This thread kills me.  I'm glad it's come back so I could have another belly laugh.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Sorry folks, but Richard

"Sorry folks, but Richard Dawkins is all washed up here in the UK which is why he is now trying to make a few dollars inflicting his fictional works on you good people."

Ridiculous.

"OK. The point I was trying to make is that because it is biologically impossible for life to start on it's own which the first document I referenced does prove"

It does not prove that, and it wouldn't matter even if it did. Evolution occurs no matter what life is or how it started.

"and because even if life could start on it's own then there hasn't been enough time for even the first protein to evolve which the second document I referenced does prove, then that derails the entire theory."

Flawed equations merely prove the author's ignorance, and that of those who reference him/her.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Redsky wrote:Sorry folks,

Redsky wrote:

Sorry folks, but Richard Dawkins is all washed up here in the UK which is why he is now trying to make a few dollars inflicting his fictional works on you good people.

 

Er... no.  Thanks for trying to speak for the rest of the country and everything but some of use have our own opinions.    The only problem Dawkins has in the UK is dealing with the British attitude of "leaving well enough alone" that accompanies any statement he makes e.g. "what's the point?  why can't you just leave it alone?  it doesn't harm anyone!".

Many British people, myself included, may not particularly like his writing style when he's not discussing science.  I thoroughly enjoyed The Selfish Gene and his other scientific works but found the God Delusion, while well reasoned and worthwhile, often repetitive and poorly argued in places.  It is the text of the latter book that earned him the tag of "grouchy old man" in some corners.  You only have to look at reviews of the Greatest Show on Earth to see that he's back on more positive ground in the UK.

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
The funny thing about this

The funny thing about this all is that whereas it is VERY scientifically valid indeed to question our current theories and try to arrive at better ones through brilliant intuitive thinking followed by rigorous research and testable predictions embedded in a hypothesis, this is not the agenda of the believers. They just want to burn the books, to smash centuries of meticulously collected field data and experimental laboratory results so that they can intimidate the human race with their sinister perversions of ultimate cosmic authority.

They are agents of tyranny and merchants of superstitious fear.

No sane person today will question the principle of evolution as being the most probable cause for why the universe appears to us as it does. And only a complete fucking moron will think that their own vague "feelings" about an issue are more valid than hundreds of years of scientific research by the best and the brightest minds that humanity has conjured up. No amount of pious living, religious chanting or enthusiastic submission to ridiculous superstitions will ever make you any more than the pathetic assholes that you are. Fuck you and all that you stand for and represent.

Not because you believe what you believe - which I will fiercely defend, to the point of my own detriment, because it is your right and privelege as a free man or woman in a free world - but because you are a fucking moron who is an even bigger moron for having the audacity to think that you are smart. You are not smart, you fool! You are not even very well informed. Not even informed enough to realize what a laughing stock you are to people who are basically too decent of character to smite you to the ground with a solid punch on your arrogant nose - which is what you deserve.

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gVf_yDDV4

There I prove common ancestory with chimps in under 2 minutes.

 "This video has been removed by the user."

No one should need a youtube video for this... whenever a fundie brings up the "*THEORY* of evolution", just throw up the  97% matching dna comparison with humans, and that chimpanzees can recognize their own face in the mirror, when nearly all other animals CAN'T. Most can't even wrap their heads around those two facts, and the others tend to claim that scientists are ideologues/heavily biased towards political left/ partisan hacks/ write our history for us.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Adventfred

jcgadfly wrote:

Adventfred wrote:


ronin-dog wrote:

What you are actually asking about is not really evolution, but the origin of life.

It is much harder to prove, but there are a few good theories on it which are being worked on.

How about you work through all of those links up there to start with.

As for evolution itself: in the 150 years today since Origin of Species was published (the first proof) there has been constant research that supports it and none that disprove it.

I don't recall anyone in this thread making any hateful comments about Christians and you did not state that you were one, so calling us Christian haters is a bit uncalled for, although typical.

I don't hate Christians, I have friends and family who are Christians and I love them.

I do hate religion though.

 

agreed people seems to confuse abiogenesis with evolution 

They also believe that if they could disprove evolution that it would automatically prove "Magic man done it".

appears so i dont know what these people are thinking 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The first article about the

The first article about the impossibility of RNA/DNA forming in any plausible environment in early Earth has been specifically refuted by recent demonstrations of spontaneous formation of chains of RNA under conditions likely to have been present in places on the early earth.

Evolution of proteins with specific functionality is a matter of mutation and selection of the DNA. All forms of copying errors have been observed  in DNA : deletion of 1 or more bases in a sequence, repeated copies of a single base or a short sequence, error in copying a base, swapping of whole sequences around on one strand or between strands.

And there is rarely just one specific peptide sequence for a protein which provide any specific functionality, which means there are several DNA sequences which could work.

No one in the science of evolution envisages that a new useful mutation appears magically in one stage. A gene may get duplicated, which allows at least one gene to genetically drift away from its original structure, allowing the possibility of going thru one or more intermediate stages where it actually generates some protein which is actually useful. Most attributes of an organism are affected by several genes, allowing different combinations of slightly different genes to maintain the function.

This all means that any simple computation of probability of any observed current state of a genome arising thru evolution is virtually impossible, because it is all but impossible to enumerate the probabilities of all the many possible paths by which it could have got to that state from some earlier state. We can't even assume that each step in the path must be an increase in 'complexity' or even functionality.

Neither article addressed the issues in anywhere near enough depth to be credible in their conclusions.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Natural_SciGuy
Natural_SciGuy's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-01-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The first

BobSpence1 wrote:

The first article about the impossibility of RNA/DNA forming in any plausible environment in early Earth has been specifically refuted by recent demonstrations of spontaneous formation of chains of RNA under conditions likely to have been present in places on the early earth.

I assume you are referring to the work of Bada, Urey and Miller here.  I personally believe that in 50 to 100 years, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey will be recognized as two of the greatest contributors to the understanding of our origins since Darwin himself.  The "ice-catalysis" experiments conducted more recently by Jeffrey Bada only seem to confirm the original findings of the Miller-Urey experiments.  In regard to your first article - It is written with very rudimentary understanding of the chemistry of bio-molecules, and asserts limitations in their reactivity without stating specific reaction conditions.  I have a problem accepting that amino acids would "instantly react" with reducing sugars without knowing the precise conditions (substantiated with experimental evidence) under which each amino acid in consideration would do so.  This is a huge assumption on it's own, and is jut one example of the appeal to lay-chemists made in the first article.  Beyond this, evidence has been provided by Jeffrey Bada's research that early "primordial" mineral concentrations may have actually contributed to the stability of amino acids in solution.

It should be noted that evolution by natural selection cannot, by definition as a theory, ever be "proved."  Scientific theories can only ever be substantiated beyond a doubt, but never proved - There is always an acknowledged possibility that evidence may arise to disprove it.  Asking somebody to prove evolution, especially asking a scientist to do so, will only bring about a laugh.  It is implicit to science that a theory be falsifiable - In fact, this is the problem that most scientists hold with creationism/design theories.  They all rest on unfalsifiable explanations.

Furthermore, evolution as a natural occurrence is a fact.  We know that evolution occurred on this planet - it would be incredibly ignorant/dense to deny this.  The question we debate is how evolution occurred, not that it occurred.

 

 

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The first

BobSpence1 wrote:

The first article about the impossibility of RNA/DNA forming in any plausible environment in early Earth has been specifically refuted by recent demonstrations of spontaneous formation of chains of RNA under conditions likely to have been present in places on the early earth.

Evolution of proteins with specific functionality is a matter of mutation and selection of the DNA. All forms of copying errors have been observed  in DNA : deletion of 1 or more bases in a sequence, repeated copies of a single base or a short sequence, error in copying a base, swapping of whole sequences around on one strand or between strands.

And there is rarely just one specific peptide sequence for a protein which provide any specific functionality, which means there are several DNA sequences which could work.

No one in the science of evolution envisages that a new useful mutation appears magically in one stage. A gene may get duplicated, which allows at least one gene to genetically drift away from its original structure, allowing the possibility of going thru one or more intermediate stages where it actually generates some protein which is actually useful. Most attributes of an organism are affected by several genes, allowing different combinations of slightly different genes to maintain the function.

This all means that any simple computation of probability of any observed current state of a genome arising thru evolution is virtually impossible, because it is all but impossible to enumerate the probabilities of all the many possible paths by which it could have got to that state from some earlier state. We can't even assume that each step in the path must be an increase in 'complexity' or even functionality.

Neither article addressed the issues in anywhere near enough depth to be credible in their conclusions.

 

people and their magic