I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zeroafar less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

And there is a lot more from this guy, I'm sure you've heard of him too. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

There is a butt-load of good scientific data here to rebut... Thoughts???

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

I'm wondering who will take this down first, Yellow, Larry or other, I'm gonna say Yellow. Smiling

Quote:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science

Making him a huge authority on biology?

Hell, Even though I'm not one to speak too much on the subject, I was reading around these forums and

Quote:
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=47 I'm sure a few more things are dealt with there.

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

well first off, you have to pay for the article..and frankly, I"m not giving these guys any money...but...

the biggest argument the theists are using right now is probability..hahahahahahah....which is a joke, because they tend to miss one little point......... the age of the earth... and once life is set in motion it is not very hard to concieve that the mechanisms set up would reproduce themseleves.... ie selection.... If you look at space, the universe, the immense vastness, and the what seems infinite age of the universe, you can see how probability becomes relative...the theists try to "wow" you with the biiiiiiig numbers, what they fail to show you is the relativeness of the statistics. There is also evidence showing that along with the evolution of molecules is the evolution of the evolutionabilty of the molecuels (exponential growth), hence increasing the chances of a certain protein--->organism etc...to form (see: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/32/11531 )

Now, once the proteins do come together in a reproducible form, it is not hard to imagine that over billions of years they would evolve, through natural selection to what we have today AND still changing by the way. The statistics of the right proteins or the precursors of proteins coming together may be unimaginable in HUMAN time, but let's step back for a second and see the universe outside our anthropogenic ideas. People, after all win the lottery no matter how bad the odds are against them, so how come is it so unfeasable for the theists (and I do know the answer to this question) that they cannot realize that the probability of the right proteins coming together is so hard...given billions of years? Well, the answer is that it gets in the way of their theism.

Let me give you an example on how statistics work.....

Rock Pocket Mice in the South westerd Desert of the US (this is an example I'm taking from the Howard Hughes Institute Holiday Lecture from 2005)

ok
So you have 2 forms of pocket mice we see today...black and sandy color.
So let's do the statitistics using natural selection adn all the variables involved.....

So you have lava flows that changed the landscape of the desert...

THis is a process that has beein going on for the past couple of million years, slowly changing the landscape of the desert.

In this habitat lives the pocket mouse

two varieties, black and sandy.... as you can see from the background this plays a big part in predator/prey relationships...one of the biggest predators of these mice are owls..and it is plain to see here how a sandy mouse, would stand out in a dark background (lava soil) and how a dark mouse would stand out on a sandy soil (sand). Obviosly there is selection on the color...right? so let's move on....

Now..let's look at the genetics involved here (another variable)

Sandy mice have two copies of the light allele, where as the dark mice have either one copy or two copies of the dark allele.

So...let's look at the numbers on how a black mouse can arise?
These are the variables involved...

Let's talk first about mutation rates: These are completely random mutations... mutations are occuring all the time, the chances of random mutations occuring to benefit the mouse are as follow:

when we multiply the variables for mutation...we get:

1 in 25 million offspring will have a black offspring..

Now a theist, using this logic would tell you it's impossible without divine intervention right? because a theist stops right here...right wher eit's convenient...wrong...let's look further... because statistics have to look at all the factors.....

ah so now based on population size and reproductive rate we see that only 1/1000 years we see a black or dark mutation occuring..hmmm...lets look further at OTHER variables..that the theists, like to leave out...

THe lava flows being 1.7 million years old, shows that the mutation could have occured at least, 1,700 times independently based on the genetics, which is PLENTY of time...but we have to look at STILL other factors here...

So now how does the population of dark mice actually spread? SELECTION here plays a major role..and we throw in still other variables to add into the statistical analysis
s is the measure of FITNESS, how well can a mouse survive and reproduce in a given population and environment.

So....

If for example within a given time black mice produce ONLY 1 more offspring in a hundred sample than the sandy mice, s=.01, or 1% advantage...so if an owl eats only 1% less black mice over a black background, you will see how this exponentially increases the chances of a black mouse to have evolved in a population...

Look at this video

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/animations/pocket_pop/pocket_pop.wmv

if s=.01 over 95% of the population over dark background will eventually be black over 1000 generations.

and if s=.10 over 95% of the population will be dark colored over dark ground in only 103 generations... that is not the same 1 in 25 million generations as the originial statistics would have you shown...other factors and variables have to be gathered here...

and from measurements in the wild s is even bigger than .10 so you can imagine how quickly these dark phased mice can EVOLVE....

SOOO...
if you look at the earth in it's beginning phases, it can easily be shown that....the 10^450 statitistic that the theist shows you can is obviously just part of the big picture....you have to look at time, and VARIABLES..not just ONE variable...

To top that off, if you look at the PNAS article, you can plainly see how, once the proteins are established in a reproducible form, how hten natural selection will exponentially increase the rate of evolution from simple proteins to organisms.

The question is not IF evolution occurs, the question remains in the details on the exact mechanisms of certain evolutionary aspects..... Science, NOT god or theism, will find the answer..
Theists are great at finding flaws, give no plausibe alterntive, except for see???? big numbers, big statistics, evolution flawed....god must have created man as the ONLY alternative...it's bullshit..plain and simple...
have a nice day.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm all about microevolution

Even though I was lied to in school about the peppered moth.

But that wasn't my question... Ok... so the world and reality is billions or an infinte amount of years old... which causes one to theorize about a butt-load of astronomical and terrestrial present circumstances. Here is another example from the same source as the original topic and I think still dealing with the formation of proteins and cells. (Which is not an artical... and is free.. fully printable, readable, yada yada. So feel free to check it out and set me straight)

Oxygen

No theory has been able to explain why earth?s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many chemical processes should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. c Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. d But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun?s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. e The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously?in other words, by creation.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm all about microevolution

nacker wrote:
Even though I was lied to in school about the peppered moth.

But that wasn't my question... Ok... so the world and reality is billions or an infinte amount of years old... which causes one to theorize about a butt-load of astronomical and terrestrial present circumstances. Here is another example from the same source as the original topic and I think still dealing with the formation of proteins and cells. (Which is not an artical... and is free.. fully printable, readable, yada yada. So feel free to check it out and set me straight)

Oxygen

No theory has been able to explain why earth?s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many chemical processes should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. c Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. d But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun?s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. e The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously?in other words, by creation.

Ah ha...

Again, reductionism and simplification of the science
I will guide you here

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1010.htm

5. Atmosphere formation

1. The atmosphere represents a gaseous layer overlapping the Earth's crust and extending many kilometers up into space. The atmosphere is thus even less substantial than, for example, Earth's crust (see illustration above).
2. gravity retains atmosphere:

i. Because of the effects of gravity, the Earth's atmosphere is mostly retained (i.e., does not diffuse out into outer space thereby escaping from the Earth). Very light gasses (for example, hydrogen gas, H2) when present, however, can and do escape into outer space, thus greatly depleting atmospheric and crustal stores.

ii. On planets less massive or dense than earth, atmospheric loss can be a bigger problem. For more massive or dense planets, atmospheric loss can be less of a problem.

3. The Earth's atmosphere was created by the offgassing of the Earth's mantle, 80-85% of this offgassing is thought to have occurred in the first million or so years of the Earth's history.

6. Early (reducing) atmosphere

1. The early atmosphere was likely dominated by carbon dioxide.
2. Other gasses:

i. Nitrogen was present in more than just trace amounts as was water vapor.

ii. Trace gasses included methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid.

3. Little molecular oxygen was present (i.e., approaching 0%).
4. It is within this early reducing atmosphere that life first evolved.

7. Molecular oxygen [oxidizing atmosphere]

1. The presence of atmospheric molecular oxygen is unstable due to oxygen's propensity to react with (oxidize) all manor of elements as well as various more or less reduced molecules and compounds. For example, carbon dioxide is the fully oxidized form of carbon.
2. Given the absence of oxygen, the early Earth's atmosphere was said to be reducing (the opposite of oxidizing).
3. Oxidation-reduction:

i. By defintion, reduction is the donation of electrons to something (i.e., the recipient of the electrons is reduced) while oxidation is the "stealing" of electrons from something (i.e., the thing from which the electrons have been "stolen" is said to have been oxidized).

ii. Oxidation-reduction reactions always come in pairs (that is, if something has been reduced, something else must have been oxidized.

iii. An understanding of oxidation-reduction is crucial to understanding life and we will come back to these concepts repeatedly.

4. Poison:

i. In fact, it is highly likely that life could not have (cannot) originate and evolve de novo in an oxidizing atmosphere because the presence of molecular oxygen would be expected to destroy (oxidize) the many reduced organic compounds used by and making up life.

ii. Consistently, this problem persists today, with a large fraction of biomolecules (and other reduced carbon compounds) highly susceptible to oxidation and, therefore, to damage upon extended exposure to oxygen.

5. Photosynthesis:

i. Where did the Earth's molecular oxygen come from? Or, why doesn't the Earth retain a reducing atmosphere? The answers are water and photosynthesis.

ii. The former is the direct molecular source of free oxygen. The latter is the process by which water is converted, i.e., oxydized, into molecular oxygen (and by which carbon dioxide is subsequently reduced to form carbohydrate).

6. Oxygen sinks:

i. It is important to note that the invention of photosynthesis did not lead to a rapid increase in the molecular oxygen content of the atmosphere. Why not? For the same reason free, molecular oxygen was absent before the invention of photosynthesis: the presence of vast reserves of reduced elements in the Earth's crust served as molecular oxygen sinks. It wasn't until all of these reduced elements had been fully oxidized that molecular oxygen would stably exist in the Earth's atmosphere.

ii. Thus, the development (i.e., evolution) of necessary defenses by organisms against the poisoness consequences of prolonged exposure to molecular oxygen could have been a gradual process.

7. Not until approximately 2 billion years ago were significant quantities of oxygen present in the atmosphere (i.e., no longer reducing) and by 1.5 billion years ago the Earth's atmosphere was as oxidized as is today's (i.e., about 20%).
8. Today's aerobic organisms (more broadly including aerotolerant organisms, ones which can live in the presence of molecular oxygen) are descendants of organisms which long ago developed defense mechanisms (mostly molecular) against molecular oxygen.
9. Living in an oxidizing atmosphere remains a significant problem and, mechanistically at least, leads to all sorts of troubling consequences such as human aging (the choice is yours, die now for lack of oxygen or die later following a lifetime of breathing the stuff).

8. Oceans

1. The water making up Earth's oceans was liberated during the mantle offgassing which also created the Earth's atmosphere.
2. Most of Earth's hydrogen is locked into water molecules and thus is not free to escape to outer space. Water dissociation to molecular oxygen and hydrogen can and does occur. In a reducing atmosphere, loss of molecular hydrogen (and thus potential water) to outer space is a very real problem. This is of greater concern on small, less dense planets, and of lesser concern on large, more dense planets.
3. Paradoxically, perhaps, the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere protects Earth's hydrogen and therefor water reserves. That is, the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere on today's Earth prevents the inevitable loss of water, and thus protects the existence of the world's oceans, by rapidly reacting with liberated molecular hydrogen, converting it back to water.

9. Ozone layer

1. Ozone is O3:

i. Another consequence of Earth developing an atmosphere consisting of significant quantities of molecular oxygen was the development of the Earth's ozone layer. Ozone is a ringed, trimeric form of oxygen that absorbs ultraviolet light (emitted by the sun) at the wavelengths harmful to DNA-based life forms

ii. Ultraviolet light also leads to the creation of ozone: O2 + ultraviolet light --- O3.

iii. Note: ozone is not a ringed molecule but instead a bent trimer with one double bond, one single bond, and resonance between the two bonds.

2. On the early Earth a significant layer of ocean water between organisms and the sun may have been necessary to effect protection from ultraviolet radiation.
3. Life on land:

i. Today 99% of the sun's ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by atmospheric ozone and, consequently, this ultraviolet radiation fails to reach Earth's surface. Thus, an oxidizing atmosphere with its consequent ozone layer and ultraviolet radiation protection was likely important to life's invasion of shallower waters and, especially, the land.

ii. (Press here for additional discussion of the sun and ultraviolet radiation, particularly as it applies to the human integumentary system.)

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

This argument, correct me if I'm wrong... begins with an assumption...

"3. The Earth's atmoshere was created by the offgassing of the Earth's mantle, 80-85% of this offgassing is thought to have occurred in the first million or so years of the Earth's history."

Besides the fact that we wiggle around different theories until it fits into the theory we want to believe... i mean accept, what scientific... observable, real evidence is there for this idea. Here is some more information on the gases of the early earth in comparison to the early "evolution of the sun." Pay special attention to the part about the amount of Carbon Dioxide and other gases.

If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25?30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today.a (A drop in the Sun?s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice?s mirrorlike surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun?s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If so, all agree that life could not have evolved.

Evolutionists first tried to solve this ?faint young Sun? problem by assuming Earth?s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it.b Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced ?carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun?s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.?c

A second approach assumes Earth?s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases. Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic.d

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zeroafar less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

First, site the sources for and justify these numbers. (no, citing the web link you listed that doesn't justify the numbers does not count).

After you do that, demonstrate that such numbers mesh with the known laws of chemistry.

After you do that, demonstrate that even if you are correct on such figures that these numbers imply a supernatural deity.

Funny how creationists never site sources or back up numbers.

The fact is that you don't know fuck-all about chemistry or biology, and are attempting to tell people who are acquainted with the subject what's what.

The truth of the matter is that creationists don't understand evolution or the theory of abiogenesis.

Proteins and amino acids form ALL THE TIME in nature, by themselves. They've been found in outer space for crying out lound.

Why don't you try to educate yourself before you try to pass on bunkl on a misleading creationist website in the future.

The early earth was teaming with amino acids, peptides, nucleotides, organics, etc - these are the building blocks of life - this is the proverbial "primordial ooze".

The first "life form" was certainly not as complicated as even a bacteria or a single cell - it may have been simply a self replicating molecule or piece of RNA that cobbled together via well known and documented chemical interactions. These self-replicating molecules exist in nature and have alse been engineered. Once replication begins, the law of natural selection kicks in and those that out replicate their counter parts become dominate and better at replicating. Life as we know it rose from these humble molecules.

Another, similar view is that catalysts, most likely enzymes or ribosomes, regenerated themselves via a catalytic cycle - regeneration is essentially replication, especially if a small piece of the catalyst breaks off and begins to regenerate elsewhere.

The main problem is that most creationists see abiogenesis like this:

simple chemicals ------> fully formed organisms.

Educated people see it like this:

simple chemicals --> polymers --> replicating polymers --> hypercycle --> protobiont --> simple single celled organism

And again, this is not a totally random process, it is a logical progression that follows from natural phenomena.

Now, if you want to play the smat guy, why not answer the following:

Here are a few questions I like to ask, and they are only the tip of the iceberg:

What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.

What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now?

We should expect related species to look similar.

What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?

Salamanders and Songbirds

More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models

More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?

An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?

You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:

PubMed links

And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray:

What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?

You call the formation of life on earth a "miracle"? What would you call the formation of an omnipotent, omnicient being? When you have more than an argument from ignorance to profer, please let us know.

In the mean time,

And there is a lot more from this guy, I'm sure you've heard of him too. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

There is a butt-load of good scientific data here to rebut... Thoughts???

When you're done with those, I have a few thousand more.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm all about microevolution

nacker wrote:
Even though I was lied to in school about the peppered moth.

Lied to about?

Like I said, you don't know Jack or Shit.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_29/ai_n13628921

The study has withstood decades of scrutiny.

Quote:
Oxygen

No theory has been able to explain why earth?s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many chemical processes should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. c Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. d But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun?s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. e The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously?in other words, by creation.

Again, you assert without backing your claims up.

The oxygen level on earth is known to have fluctuated over the millenia. Not only that, but at the very begininning, UV radiation may have been NECESSARY to aid in the formation of self replicating molecules and simple life. Again, all you have is an argument from incredulity, with NOTHING to support it. The earth has gone through radical changes since its formation, you beg the question and make the mistake of assuming that life THEN must have been like life now.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:

If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25?30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today.a (A drop in the Sun?s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.)

Evolutionists first tried to solve this ?faint young Sun? problem by assuming Earth?s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it.b Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced ?carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun?s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.?

A creationist lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE311.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

Besides, at this point in time the earth was a freaking lava ball anyway. It makes no difference.

In the end, again it doesn't matter, as the truth is obvious.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zeroafar less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

First, site the sources for and justify these numbers. (no, citing the web link you listed that doesn't justify the numbers does not count).

After you do that, demonstrate that such numbers mesh with the known laws of chemistry.

After you do that, demonstrate that even if you are correct on such figures that these numbers imply a supernatural deity.

AND... after you do all that, describe how the bible fits into all this, since after all, the bible is THE spoken word of GOD. is it NOT??? If creatinists want to use SCIENCE to back up creationism, it would only make sense that SCIENCE is in the BIBLE, I would like to see the passage in the bible where it describes the function of Oxygen and gasses as it applies to the formation of the earth.....obviously god would have written that in the bible. Please quote and source the bible on the physics and chemistry of gas dynamics and how it applies to the metabolism in organisms and the dynamics of the oxidation/reduction reactions. Because after all, if you want to debate science on a biblical level, you better have a biblical JUSTIFICATION to do so, and if it is not in the bible then the foundation of the argument crumbles like the theory of the virgin mary. It is not the position of scientists to defend science, it is the position of scientists to search for the truth using science.

Scientists have questions that need answering...Theists have answers that seek evidence. By doing so they place the burden on proof on science where it is the theists and the apologists who need to justify themselves.

Trolling is a waste of time....search for truth, however, is to be done not by finding corners, but by opening doors. You my friend, find yourself in a room wiht no doors. Answers in Genesis....is a bullshit website designed to twist, turn and lie...to produce "believable" scientific approaches to issues that are explainable through science, if not now, possibly soon. But science unlike xtianity and theism, do not claim to know all the answers.. It is the theists who are arrogant enough to say WE KNOW ALL OF GOD'S WAYS BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE A "SCIENTIFIC " WEBSITE THAT TELLS US so, even though there is no biblical correlation whatsoever, and without the bible, xtianity is nothing, so you can only conlcude logically that if it ain't in da bible, don't even bother arguing it. Claims on the Answers in Genesis site, have absolutely no relation to the Bible, they are intellectually dishonest twists of science. Stop wasting time trying to find holes in science. All it does is discredit you as a believer (theist), because you are trying to use a tool (science) which the bible discredits, the bible discredits it, then your whole arguments are discredited from a (biblical standpoint) and from a sceintific one because the truth lies outside the claims of Answers in Genesis or whatever other twisted science....you may find. And certainly outside the bible. But if you have to resort to Science to try to discredit science, you are already outside the realm of god..therefore...already the bible has lost credibility..so what is it, the bible or science..choose one, but you can't choose both.

At first I thought you were indeed here to seek answers, but it has become apparent you are trolling. no need for that....don't come here..as a wolf in sheeps clothing my friend... you don't want answers..because you think you already have them....

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

I was actualy finding this presence kind of fun (am I strange for that) because I know between just you and yellow, you could probably knock down anything he has to say. Its not so much a game of tennis as it is hitting the balls back from a tennis ball launcher.

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

HealingBlight wrote:
I was actualy finding this presence kind of fun (am I strange for that) because I know between just you and yellow, you could probably knock down anything he has to say. Its not so much a game of tennis as it is hitting the balls back from a tennis ball launcher.

indeed. debate is one thing...trolling is a waste of my time..and I believe I've devoted enough already. I was thinking of locking this forum, however, I will give a chance to rebut adn keep discussion open for ANYONE to join in. I think I can speak for both yellow and I that we feel as if our intelligence is insulted when we read Answers in Genesis crap.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
This argument, correct me if I'm wrong... begins with an assumption...

Interesting statement, and what exactly do you think creationism is based on? An assumption that there is a god..that created the earth and people, obviously because he/she/it was bored and wanted to play a little game, by introducing hate and war, disease etc?? are you kiddin? You dare attack science on the basis of assumption? You need to go back and re-read your bible my friend, if anyone is making assumptions here, it's the theists and there baseless theories that are assumptions.

Scientific theories are based on facts. not made up stories. Scientists did not one day discover a book entilted the "meaning of life" and base all of their theories behind a single book.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

Hey guys,

I appreciate the discussions... don't really understand why you got so angry if you were so sure you were right. I was hoping for some rational discussions. Simple presentation of information that we both... or at least I could grow from. What I found was worse defensiveness of a system than I've ever found... even growing up in southern baptist churches.

LeftofLarry wrote:
nacker wrote:
This argument, correct me if I'm wrong... begins with an assumption...

Interesting statement, and what exactly do you think creationism is based on? An assumption that there is a god..that created the earth and people, obviously because he/she/it was bored and wanted to play a little game, by introducing hate and war, disease etc?? are you kiddin? You dare attack science on the basis of assumption? You need to go back and re-read your bible my friend, if anyone is making assumptions here, it's the theists and there baseless theories that are assumptions.

Scientific theories are based on facts. not made up stories. Scientists did not one day discover a book entilted the "meaning of life" and base all of their theories behind a single book.

Theories are still theories. And to believe in them and defend them with such earnest seems so religious --- and I can only imagine the anger that comment made. At any rate, I thank you for your time, and thanks for encouraging me to study more, and for pointing me in the right directions to study.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


CynageN
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

Backout while you're ahead I suppose. They stated the steps to take to make the theory credible infront of any rational scientist. The anger comes from the fact that really no creationists do this, and thus there is no reason to deal with them until they do.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zeroafar less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

First, site the sources for and justify these numbers. (no, citing the web link you listed that doesn't justify the numbers does not count).

?Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10600 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher).? Fix, p. 196.

u ?I don?t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ?others? are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.? Fred Hoyle, ?The Big Bang in Astronomy,? New Scientist, Vol. 92, 19 November 1981, p. 526.

Step one... don't yell at me please.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

CynageN wrote:
Backout while you're ahead I suppose. They stated the steps to take to make the theory credible infront of any rational scientist. The anger comes from the fact that really no creationists do this, and thus there is no reason to deal with them until they do.

Man.. that is such a generalization... In what I've studied, I understand that doesn't compare to you giants... everyone makes the same claims. Creationsists aren't real scientists... they all say this. They all base their findings on these assumptions. They aren't founded in science or fact. But the Creationists will say the same things about the Evolutionists... What I'm finding is a lot of really intelligent people who are just closed minded. A lot of the information I've studied is well cited and rational from both sides. But I'm not sure if either side will look past their dogmatic assertions to have a real rational discussion. We can't discuss the ideas b/c we have attached our identities to them. So we aren't really defending an idea or a theory, we are defending ourselves... and that is why we get so pissed.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


qwak
Posts: 124
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
Hey guys,

Theories are still theories. And to believe in them and defend them with such earnest seems so religious --- and I can only imagine the anger that comment made. At any rate, I thank you for your time, and thanks for encouraging me to study more, and for pointing me in the right directions to study.

I would highly recommend looking up the definition of the word theory. It might help explain why we would defend them with such earnest.

music

http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
Hey guys,

I appreciate the discussions... don't really understand why you got so angry if you were so sure you were right. I was hoping for some rational discussions. Simple presentation of information that we both... or at least I could grow from. What I found was worse defensiveness of a system than I've ever found... even growing up in southern baptist churches.

LeftofLarry wrote:
nacker wrote:
This argument, correct me if I'm wrong... begins with an assumption...

Interesting statement, and what exactly do you think creationism is based on? An assumption that there is a god..that created the earth and people, obviously because he/she/it was bored and wanted to play a little game, by introducing hate and war, disease etc?? are you kiddin? You dare attack science on the basis of assumption? You need to go back and re-read your bible my friend, if anyone is making assumptions here, it's the theists and there baseless theories that are assumptions.

Scientific theories are based on facts. not made up stories. Scientists did not one day discover a book entilted the "meaning of life" and base all of their theories behind a single book.

Theories are still theories. And to believe in them and defend them with such earnest seems so religious --- and I can only imagine the anger that comment made. At any rate, I thank you for your time, and thanks for encouraging me to study more, and for pointing me in the right directions to study.

THe reason why I show animosity is because you seem to have the attributes of a troll....perhaps not. But the way you have started your "discussions" here were not for discussion OR education.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zeroafar less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

First, site the sources for and justify these numbers. (no, citing the web link you listed that doesn't justify the numbers does not count).

?Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10600 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher).? Fix, p. 196.

u ?I don?t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ?others? are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.? Fred Hoyle, ?The Big Bang in Astronomy,? New Scientist, Vol. 92, 19 November 1981, p. 526.

Step one... don't yell at me please.

These sourse ASSERT numbers, they don't justify them.

Try again, this time, show your math.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
A lot of the information I've studied is well cited and rational from both sides.

Show me peer reviewed creationist studies with generally accepted results in a scientific journal.

Perhaps you can simply start by telling us what "creation science" predicts, how it can be verified and how it can be falsified.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
nacker wrote:
To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zeroafar less than 1 in 10^450. To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

First, site the sources for and justify these numbers. (no, citing the web link you listed that doesn't justify the numbers does not count).

?Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10600 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher).? Fix, p. 196.

u ?I don?t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ?others? are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.? Fred Hoyle, ?The Big Bang in Astronomy,? New Scientist, Vol. 92, 19 November 1981, p. 526.

Step one... don't yell at me please.

Oh, and btw if you haven't noticed I've already turned the "biological improbability tables" upon you, you've simply failed to respond.

Quote:
What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

BTW, saying it was a "common creator" explains nothing, and is certainly not a scientific explanation, so please, don't waste your time with that lame and altogether meaningless retort.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

OK now, no need to be cold quacks on this guy...

The "faint sun" theory is, unfortunately, just a theory. It would imply that after a star is formed, it gradually heats up, reaching its best ina bout 600 million years (for a star the size of our sun). The theory, although having a grain of truth in it, has a very big minus: it is true that gasseous clouds in space do collapse and grdually heat up over time, but until they have "lit up" to a fairly good ammount, the gravitational force that they impose is very low, thus not being able to force the outer rings of gas to condense into forming planets. By the time Earth has formed, the Sun was already radiating enough heat for life to form, and even if it didn't, it would be many aeons until the newly-formed Earth's crust would cool down to allow the formation of complexe carbon-based mollecules.

What the author of this controversy (and of the sources cited by him) fail to notice is that life has only been around for at most 2 - 2.5 billion years in the form of cells... presuming that the Solar System has formed 4.5 billion years ago, that would still leave 2 billion years tolerance for conditions proper for life to appear which is... huge.

There has been a post here about the Evil Bible site... there's an article presented there on a SUCCESSFUL spontaneous life generation experiment... so the creationist greatest argument just fails.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Re: I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

nacker wrote:
To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zeroafar less than 1 in 10^450.

if you win the lottery, will you say afterwards: 'the odds of me winning the lotto are against me, therefore i did not win'?


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm a newb... Hope this is a new topic... Cell Formation

Sorry I've been away from this topic lately... forgot about it and thought it was dead... I'll read all of the posts and try to give some good information for further discussion as soon as time allows.

late
nack

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.