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.

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.)

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???