Evolution Discussion Moved From Another Thread

Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Evolution Discussion Moved From Another Thread

Posts concerning evolution moved from another thread.

 

From here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7067?page=1

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


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: James Cizuz

AL500 wrote:
James Cizuz wrote:

If evolution holds true, which it has proven to, then you are more important by the level of evolution. Since you are more complex, and one of the highest, if not highest evolved animal on the planet, your life in more valuable then an ameba. Although thats how I see it.

That's not true at all. Evolution is fantasy and fiction. There is NO evidence to support it. Scientists know this that is why it is being discarded.

 

B

 

Al, sweetie, this couldn't be further from the truth.

Evolution is scientific fact, there are mounds of evidence to support it and no scientists that I know of are 'discarding' it. 

If you'd like to cite some sources for your claims, I'll gladly rip them apart for you. 


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
evolution...

Quote:
Al, sweetie, this couldn't be further from the truth.

Evolution is scientific fact, there are mounds of evidence to support it and no scientists that I know of are 'discarding' it. 

If you'd like to cite some sources for your claims, I'll gladly rip them apart for you.


 
Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small! (i.e. an ostrich)

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Michael Behe is one such scientist who has excellent arguments against evolution, and he's NOT a Christian. Smiling  I'd recommend reading up on him before you try to "rip apart" his numerous studies.

I may be undecided, but evolution is just a bunch of laughable stuff rammed down public schoolers' throats.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?

Proto-wings would have increased the organism's balance, allowing for faster and more agile running.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Half a wing can have any
  1. Half a wing can have any of several uses:
    • In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).
    • In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Airfoils for gliding appear in several different forms in many different animals, including
      • skin between legs on flying squirrels (Petauristinae), scaly-tailed squirrels (Anomaluridae), flying phalangers, and flying lemurs
      • flattened body of the flying snake (Chrysopelea)
      • large webbed feet on gliding tree frogs (Rhacophorus and Polypedates)
      • fins on flying fish (Exocoetidae) and flying squid (Onychoteuthis)
      • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated flexible ribs on gliding lizards (e.g., Draco)
      • expanded lateral membranes supported by elongated jointed ribs on the Kuehneosauridae from the late Triassic
      • lateral membrane supported by bones separate from the rest of the skeleton on Coelurosauravus jaekeli, an Upper Permian flying reptile (Frey et al. 1997)
      • even an ant (Cephalotes atratus), when it falls, uses its hind legs to direct its aerial descent back to its home tree's trunk (Yanoviak et al. 2005).
    • In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindlimb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)
    • In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.
    • In some flightless birds, wings are probably used for startling potential predators.
    • Black herons use their wings to shade the water in which they fish.
    • Some owls use their wings to hold their prey against the ground.
    • Nighthawks, woodcocks, riflebirds, and several species of manakins make noises with their wings as part of sexual displays.
    • Partial wings may have other useful functions that nobody has thought of yet.

AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: If

James Cizuz wrote:

If evolution holds true, which it has proven to, then you are more important by the level of evolution. Since you are more complex, and one of the highest, if not highest evolved animal on the planet, your life in more valuable then an ameba. Although thats how I see it.

That's not true at all. Evolution is fantasy and fiction. There is NO evidence to support it.  Scientists know this that is why it is being discarded.

 

B

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
"Birds Prove Natural

"Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong "

 

Funny then, I wonder why we have fossils that clearly document the evolution of feathered proto-bird dinosaurs to flightless, bird-like reptiles to the gliding archeoptyryx to the earliest flying birds.

 What do you suggest, a "magic man done it?"

Please, we've heard all of Michael Behe's bullshit before, and I suggest you read up on some Darwin or Dawkins and then get back to us, m'kay?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:

That's not true at all. Evolution is fantasy and fiction. There is NO evidence to support it. Scientists know this that is why it is being discarded.

Having worked at the Max Planck institute as well as a slew of scientific institutions, I can honestly say that this is utterly absurd. No scientist who is not an evolutionist willl be taken very seriously.

As a molecular biologist, I can confimr that the evidence from molecular biology supports evolution and nothing else.

 

And before we begin, I shall introduce the terminology and the tests from which we gather our information:

 

Vocabulary:

 

Duplicative mutation: A genetic mutation where a gene string is accidentally duplicated during mitosis failure. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability.

 

Homology: A family relationship between two or more genes (or sets of genes) as the result of a duplicative mutation. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.

 

Paralogy: A relationship between two closely related genes in a single genome as the result of a mutation. These two genes (or sets) are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier species. For instance, the seven human haemoglobins are said to be paralogous of each other.

Orthology: A relationship between genes or sets of genes in different species. When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.

Recombinative mutation: Chunks of genetic information are shuffled around. Bear this in mind for what we talk about below.

 

Vocabulary regarding protein organization:

Polypeptide chain: A tertiary protein is one consisting of only one polypeptide chain (one very long molecule made of many amino acid subunits all covalently bonded, usually 50-2000 amino acids long)

 

Tertiary domain: A recognizable subunit of a polypeptide chain. Domains are usually consistent of many alpha helices and beta sheets twisted around each other. A tertiary domain is essentially a clearly distinct building block of a polypeptide chain. When I say distinct, I mean obvious. For example, the protein nucleosaminade is constructed of four distinct regions symmetrically aligned in a tetramer (four identical domains). Perhaps telling you how obvious the domain distinct is. Perhaps a picture would help:

neuraminidase quadrimer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domains can be aligned in stack-up formation (N-terminus to C and so on) to create long strandlike proteins as seen in fibronectin shown here

head-to-tail fibronectin structural protein

 

Hopefully these pictures will make you understand what I mean when I say that a domain is a “distinct region”. The technical definition of a domain is “a region of protein which folds up independent of the rest of the chain”. Thus we can see that a tertiary domain is a clear, distinct region of protein which makes up the large building subunits of polypeptide chains, a fact which will be important later.

 

Modular domain: A domain which pops up all over the proteome of many different proteins and many different domains in many different species, essentially a building block ubiquitous throughout evolution.

 

*critical note about tertiary and modular domains. When we say the domain is in many places, keep in mind that domains are not identical protein strings to the letter. Two protein strings can be 50% different in amino acid string and still be the same domain (as a domain is defined by its function). This is why the human haemoglobin alpha is a different protein string to say, the chimp haemoglobin alpha, but they are still the same domain. This is crucial for a test discussed soon called the molecular clock.

 

Quaternary domain: Many proteins are consistent of many polypeptide chains (tertiary proteins) noncovalently bonded together. If this is the case then it is called a quaternary protein complex, and the subunits of this large complex (called quaternary domains) are the tertiary proteins (the subunits of which of course, are tertiary domains)

 

Primary structure: Unfolded protein. A straight string of amino acids.

Secondary structure: The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the tertiary subunits.

Tertiary structure: The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual atoms and peptide bonds take shape.

Quaternary structure: Only applicable in a quaternary protein. Same as tertiary structure, except of course, with a protein complex holding multiple noncovalent bonded chains

 

Signature sequence: These are crucial for identifying two protein strings which are the same domain but which have very different amino acid sequences (note, the key factor in determining whether two strings are indeed the same domain is 3D geometry, aka the fold or conformation, but this can often take years to construct). For instance, two protein strings can still be considered the same domain even if, say, the match between them is 30% amino acids identical. This is because many of the mutations do not alter the geometry of the string (these neutral mutations are also called “background noise”).

 

So to help us tell where two protein strings are indeed the same domain, we need to find the signature sequences, conserved amino acid strings critical for the functioning of the protein (often these strings are so sensitive that they do not change whatsoever, even over two billion years). For example:

 

This is a comparison of the SH2 domain of the Src kinase protein (a domain which is more or less ubiquitous) between the human and the fruit fly Drosophila. Note that these are actually identical domains despite their clear differences in sequence. The results:

Homo Sapiens

WYFGKKITRRESERLLLNAERPRGTFLVRESETTKGAYCLSVSDFDNAKGL

Drosophila melanogaster:

WFFENVLREADKLLLAEENPEGTFLVRPSEHNNGYSLSVKDWEDGRKYGY

Protein Domain Signature Homologies in both: WYFGKITRRESERLL
GTFLVRESE

Side chain grouping matches:
W+F+R+E+++LLLENPRGTFLVRSEYLSVD+++_G

The reason we can ID these two strings as the same protein is due to the signature sequences which are conserved only in the SH2 domain.

 

Tests used (need to know about these):

 

Sequencing: Very simple. Run a gene sequence through a sequencer and determine the string of nucleotides that make up the gene.

 

Proteomic Sequencing: A protein’s amino acid string can be immediately determined through gene sequencing. This is really boring, so we just run it through a proteomic sequencer and the codons are matched with the correct amino acid.

 

Microarray: Crucial test to measure how mutations affect gene expression. A Microarray is a tiny square on which we can array the genome or a section of genome of any organism we care to test. Each gene is arrayed on it’s own tiny glass square subunit within the array. A mixture of nucleotides is then passed over the array, which bond to the ones aligned on the array. These nucleotides have fluorescent chemical tags attached to them, and thusly, they light up. The rate of gene expression can be monitored based on the fluorescence of the nucleotides to which a particular gene is tagged. In this way, thousands of genes can be monitored simultaneously, the effect of adding or removing any gene can be monitored, different conditions on the gene set can be monitored, and the entire GRNP (Gene Regulatory Node Pathway) can be completely constructed, and the result of evolutionary changes on the GRNP can be monitored to a degree of exact detail. The evolutionary relationship between organisms becomes immediately clear as we can observe the effect of mutations on the organism as a whole (making this test much more accurate than knockout selective mutation test), albeit much more difficult to read).

 

Genetic engineering knockout: When we want to find out what a certain gene does, we can do this:

a) Knockout test. Engineer an organism with one and only one specific gene removed by a process called recombinative deleting. Observe effect on the phenotype to conclude what this gene does. By breeding many mutant versions of an organism with one particular gene, any gene that we wish to test, knocked out of it, we can discern what the missing gene does.

b) Engineered insertion: To help discern what the gene knocked out of one organism does, we can insert it into another and find out exactly how it works. A memorable example, I recall, is the removal of pax6 gene from a mouse, which is a master gene that commands a set of genetic instructions to make an eye. We only discovered this when we inserted it into a fly and astonishingly discovered a perfectly formed fly eye growing on the fly’s leg.

 

What this means is that we inserted pax6 next to the gene expression regulators responsible for coordinating development of the leg. This is the other useful piece of data obtained from an engineered insertion test. For instance, I trust you have all heard of the famous “glowing green monkey”, where researchers inserted a fluorescent green protein gene into a monkey genome and discovered that it was now glowing green, thus indicating that the gene had been inserted next to the one responsible for skin pigmentation.

 

Homologous match comparison:

 

Molecular Clock: A crucial test. The necessity of a protein domain for survival will affect the rate of mutation and change of that gene. Critical genes that are absolutely necessary for survival do not change very easily and are thusly called conserved genes. The rate at which mutations in domains occurs is measured by observing the rate of change of a domains by comparing the amino acid divergence in different species. For instance, haemoglobin changes at a rate of 6% every 100 million years. Due to the fact that the homologous domains are identical, this divergence would only exist if the species in question are descendants of a common ancestor. If ID, creationism, sponataneous appearance of complex life by God waving his magic finger, then these divergences should not eixst. An example of how this can be used to rip Behe's Irreducibile complexity a new asshole shown here:

[Digression]

 Blood Clotting Claimed Irreducible By Behe: False.

It might be best to step back and first determine how the metabolic pathways to blood clotting work. It is a complex process indeed. At the heart of blood clotting is a substance in your blood called fibrin. Fibrin is a sticky molecule soluble in water which has the natural tendancy to form a clot. The mesh which it forms stops haemopoitic cells from escaping. Fibrin forms about 3% of the blood. However, it obviously cannot exist normally as fibrin, or it would simply block up the vessels, hence when in the blood, fibrin exists as part of a larger molecule called fibrinogen. Fibrinogen is a complex, amino-acid rich macromolecular complex, which at it’s center contains the fibrin molecule. Surrounding it are many amino acid side chains, which have a negative charge (at the pH of blood, amines and side chains always have a charge). This causes them to repel each other, thus they exist as independent molecules in the blood, without clotting.

This changes when a wound initiates the metabolic pathways known as the blood clotting cascade. A protease enzyme has to catalyze the removal of the side chains, thus exposing the fibrin. This enzyme is called thrombin. But obviously thrombin has to exist as an inactive enzyme otherwise it would simply initiate the reaction whenever. It exists as protothrombin, and has to be activated to become the catalysis enzyme. A tiny additional chain on the protothrombin fold renders it inactive. This has to be removed by another clotting serine factor, Factor X. This too, as a serine, must be activated in the same manner. And so, the blood clotting cascade has four steps more until we reach the beginning. Factor X is activated by Factor XI, which is activated by Factor IX, which is activated by Factor XII, Which is activated by the Kininogen-Kallikrein system of co-activation, which is triggered by external stimuli. This is where the process starts.

 

The activation of the serine cofactors is a similar process. For XI to become XIa (Activated Factor 11), a side chain must be cut removing the ionic charge, which allows it to cascade into the next step. It seems unnecessary complex, almost like an infinite regress of serine-cofactor activation steps. But it makes sense, because for every step that is taken, an exponential signal transduction increase occurs. If it was just a very short pathway, say a single cofactor triggered by external stimuli to start the thrombin conversion, then the clot would be far too small, and would take hours to form. Thus, the six-step amplification works best.

 

In others words, blood coagulation is a complex and beautiful process. But does that mean it is irreducible and could not have evolved? One of the key establishment requisites of Behe’s irreducible complexity is that a mechanism could not evolve by gradual evolutionary steps. But I beg to differ. The implication that he made clear in Darwin’s Black Box was that the designer would have to put all the parts together at once, otherwise it would not really be irreducible or a challenge to evolution. But unfortunately, genetic analysis of the cofactor cascade tells us otherwise. Thus we return to my previous comment about the homologous nature of the cascade.

 

So how could this function have evolved, and how can we trace it? Typically, when we start looking at a biomolecular function, we have a base from which to start. We never start from scratch. Only primordial chemists deal in that. This base function might be exteremly primitive, almost bound by basic laws of chemistry. For instance, when we look at the eye in all it’s glory, we see that all nine divergences that have taken their course come from a highly simplified patch of light-sensitive cells. Likewise, when we observe the fantastic complexity and variation of the Eukaroytic cell membranes, with all their complex ion channels and protein transport functions, we see that in common they are all bound a very simple chemical law known as ampipathism, the tendency of hydrophilic/phobic molecules to align in a bilayer. The membrane’s composition resembles a flagellum in molecular shape, with a long twin hydrophobic fatty acid tail and a stubby hydrophilic choline-phosphate-glycerol head.

 

What similar base function might we find in blood clotting? Studying the evolution of metabolic pathways is different to studying other molecular functions. The job is made significantly easier by the Autocatalytic nature of the pathways as described in my previous link. Much of the steps in coagulation work like that too. The serine proteases that form the original primitive life forms (as being detected on the long arms of chromosomes 1 and 5) were not originally designed for blood clotting, but they were there. In his book Finding Darwin’s God, Ken Miller suggests that cAMP (that’s cyclic adenosine monophosphate) would be a significant launch pad to build up the homologous set of serine cofactors that make the cascade. He’s correct here. cAMP is cellular transduction molecule that acts somewhat like a neurotransmitter, smoothing muscular tissue around vascular epithelial tissue, and inhibiting blood flow. A damaged cell, spilling all of it’s contents, would pour the cAMP out along with it. Evolution could work with that. Cellular mechanisms already possess, for unrelated reasons, white blood cells, whose adhesive nature allowed them to clump the wound

 

From the rudimentary system, where several factors are in place and a simple automatic system of clumping exists, a highly complex multilayered system of cascading can accumulate by two well-known evolutionary processes. One is called duplicate error from which the various homologies are formed, and the other is exon shuffling as done by spliceosomes. From the receptors point of view, we could see how the repeated duplication and slight mutation of the serine cofactors would work, for reasons not the least of which that we can track it’s paralogies. For the most part, coagulation is autocatalytic, it just needs the materials to initiate. If the progenitors are already in place, then well…all that is needed is time for the duplicative errors to occur. If we have primordial serine cofactors (we do), the rudimentary single layer is pre-existing (ie, primordial enzyme A is cleaved to make Aa, which actives the thrombin). This would initiate itself. And we can imagine the naturally selective benefits that would come from the repeated duplication of the serine, as this would make clotting more efficient.

It is in no way Irreducible. You can be sure that we would notice it in the genome if it was (as it turns out, they are strewn all over the genomes across the strata, XII is in Chromosome 5, VII is on 13, Factor VIII is on the sex chromosome etc)

Blood clotting is an example of a zymogen cascade pathway, and any metabolism generated by zymogenes can be generated by duplication and homology. This particular cascade is composed almost exclusively of serine proteases. Surely, serine protease zymogenous cascade is the worst example of "intelligent design", not because it is poor, but because the homology in this particular protein family is more obvious than any other family, kinase domains, homeodomains, Cro repressor dimers, you name it, this is the textbook example of a protein family in an obvious homology. This particular domain is so close in amino acid structure of the proteases that some of the serines are nearly indistinguishable without close scrutiny of the difference in signature sequences. (Sig sequences are tiny stretches of amino acids 10-30 amino acids long used to ID domain stretches that have diverged alot). Of course, the serines haven't exactly diverged alot. In fact, they are one of the most conserved families in the whole proteome. They are the nemesis of intelligent design, an obvious example of duplication and homology.

[End of digression]

 

when I read your first thought was...that's it? Thats your response to 16,000 homology catalogues, Endogenous Retroviral insertions, and Mitochondrial DNA transfers? Sir, this relationship is extremely obvious, and it is not one, it is tens of thousands of homologies which clearly diverge as separation widens and close as it narrows, as indicated by time length separation. This test will come up on any protein domain I pick. It clearly indicates that life began a primordial genome, and as the genome duplicated, parts diverged and it expanded thusly. Genetic duplication error and polyploids are set in stone fact, and no geneticist would say otherwise. I can even watch gene duplication myself, using a microarray, although I hardly think it is worth the trouble. Using decoders, microarrays, and homology databases, geneticists have now catalogued evolutionary relationships between vast swaths of life, and the effects of these changes.

The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as separations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.

Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.

 

It is about duplicative mutations, followed by recombinative mutations, or shuffling mutations. For instance, A protein is not subdivided merely by it’s amino acid. It is grouped into large subunits called polypeptides, regional stretches of protein subunit roughly 100 amino acids long. In this way we can see that massive proteins (>1000 amino acids) are not only defined by their individual, but ultimately, the order of different units created by smaller strings of amino acids within the complex. The protein transforms into it’s secondary structure by folding at the kinks between the subunits. The shape, therefore, of a protein is directly determined by it’s chemical sequence. The folding becomes further intricate during progression to tertiary structure when the folds between individual units take shape. Finally, the protein reaches it’s quaternary structure or it’s native state, with the intricate system of folds.

there is almost nothing original in the vertebrae genome. It is the result of multiple whole-global duplications throughout evolution. Even in humans, the proteome contains only 7% vertebrae-specific proteins. The only place we really seem to have any originality is in domain shuffling (Im pretty sure that the human tyrpsin can bind to at least 18 domains, while in drosophilia it's only 5). As I said about protein structure, much of the innovation merely comes from rearrangement of subunits, which is beneficial in terms of the shuffling mutation quite often.

 

These are divergences found in an identical protein domain confirmed exactly by molecular clock tracking against the known divergence rate of the domain and the orthologous seperation of these two species. If (as you claim) these species were created within days of each other, or had no common ancestor, this divergence would not exist. This is the same domain for each animal, which I took the liberty of sequencing myself. Because I can.

 

Orthologous Divergence of the haemoglobin chain of various vertebrae correlated by molecular tracking:

Percentage divergence in amino acids between conserved domain of haemoglobin

Human/Lamprey (divergence: 550 million years ago) 35%

Human /Shark (Divergence: 520 million years) 51%

Human/tuna fish (450 million years) 55%

Human/frog (350 million years) 56%

Human/chicken (320 million years) 70%

Human/lizard (270 million years) 77%

Bird/Crocodile (220 million years) 76%

Human/Kangaroo (170 million years) 81%

Human/Sloth/Mouse/Elephant/Rabbit/Pig/Sheep/Whale/Cat/Dog/rat

All between 150 and 50 million years, all 80-85% related in this domain

Human/orangutang (10 million years) 98%

and finally...human/chimp (7 million years) 100%

 

All this in turn is corroborated by ERV tracking and the vertical transfers in Mitochondrial DNA

How do you explain and account for mitochondrial DNA horizontal transfer migration without common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertion occurs when a retrovirus reverse transcribes it's own RNA into a host's DNA by means of polymerase RNA-DNA conversion, 3' and 5' enzymatic degradation and intergrase fusion. Retroviruses are the only organisms that can do this. That is what makes HIV so deadly. The ERV insertions are rare and very random. Although complementation ensures they can only bind to specific points on the host's genome, the amount of possible insertions that the ERV could transcribe, not to mention the fact that this has to be to the power of seven to account for all seven retroviruses, and of course, the fact that it is a very rare occurrence and the fact that even a single transcribed piece has numerous choices of insertion due to multiple duplication errors that exist in Eukaryotic genomes means the odds of finding even just one insertion (let alone 8% of the genome for humans alone) on one identical position in the chromosomal karyotype would be astronomical. And then, that number has to be raised to the power of seven, then multiplied by several thousand to account for all the possible transcribable genes, which has to multiplied by 10 again to account for the duplicative errors, and that doesn't even factor in how rare the insertions are.

The only way it is possible that we can find large strings of ERV's on identical interspersals throughout the genome of species throughout every eon is because of common descent.

It is empirically demonstratable that mitochondria are the result of billion year old symbiosis between ancient oxyphobic bacteria and proto-eukaryotes. This is the reason they have their own little genome. The mtDNA genome in humans is only 16,000 base pairs. Prokaryotes have a remarkable ability to exchange genetic material by a different process which is critical to bacterial evolution. This is called horizontal transfer. Vertical transfer is an ability eukaryotes do not have because their DNA is enclosed in an intercellular packaged membrane (hence the name eukaroyote). Vertical transfer occurs when bacteria simply exchange genes by passing them through the cell membrane to each other. This can occur either by direct junction fusing or literally uptaking of the new material. Prokaryotes can take any peice of nucleic acid string and simply incorporate it immediately because their DNA is not kept in an intercellular membrane.

So, mitochondria, as ancient prokaryotes, of course keep their DNA is a loop strand like every other bacteria. Indeed, mtDNA also undergoes transfer. This is very rare and obviously useless. In this case, it is intracellular thus the transfer is into the nucleus of the host cell, where the master genome is stored. Such is termed mtDNA migration.

I think mtDNA migration is even better than ERV because the probability is even lower by several orders of magnitude that we could find mtDNA on identical positions of the genotypes of multipe species throughout multiple eons without common descent whereby the offspring would inherit the mtDNA. The best part is that obviously, as time passes, the amount of mtDNA in the master genomes should accumulate, since more horizontal transfer is taking place over longer periods of time, and this should still turn up on the same positions in the genotype. What a surprise! It does.

Without common descent, the probability of individual horizontal transfers accounting for entire species inheriting identical mtDNA which remains so throughout geological eons and continues to accumulate and end up in the same places is so low the number is unfathomable.

And now to recall the discussion about protein domains is the clincher, namely the fact that there are no original protein domains in the whole proteomic spectrum makes it very obvious that they evolved by duplication and blind guidance. The entire vertebrae genome was created by shuffling mutations which rearranged domains into novel combinations. The human genome contains only 7% vertebrae specific protein, and differs in terms of size from a fruit fly by only a factor of 1.2, yet the fact that much more novel and complex arrangements of the same protein domains means the construction of a much more complex organism. There is nothing original about the vast diverstiy of life. It all came from very simple, repeating, diverging, primordial, protein domains.

 

 

 

"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


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 No! There is NO evidence

 No! There is NO evidence for evolution. That's why more and more scientists are abandoning it every year. I predict it will be dead as a serious scientific theory within twenty years. There's a reason it has always been refered to as a "theory."  Professor Cavarnos of Harvard personally told me that the high school system no longer teaches students to analyze things. They aren't taught critical thought. They are taught to just blindly swallow everything thing they are told. Scientists are abandoning evolution in the droves. E. Kenyon of Stanford Unuversity was responsible for writing many of the public education text books on evolution. After he viewed the 6 part video series titled "ORIGINS," and read "THE NATURAL SCIENCES KNOW NOTHING OF EVOLUTION," both by A.E. Wilder Smith, he completely rejected evolution and was persecuted by the University. The schools and colleges won't allow anything to be taught but evolution. This is political. It has nothing to do with real science. You must understand that. Evolution is probably the biggest scientific fraud in human history.

It is not science. It is fiction, fantasy and complete nonsense, and true and honest scientists know it.

There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know." Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?" That pretty well summarizes the extent of the progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic, atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible. The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe. There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life.

 The absence of the required atmosphere.

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere, evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

 All forms of raw energy are destructive.

The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."

 An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

 Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.

It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky.

 DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.

DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine)." Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
AL500, you've been owned so

AL500, you've been owned so many times your warranty has now expired. Bleating passionately without evidence and quoting creationist tracts that 'prove' evolution wrong and which have all been debunked multiple times is not the same as providing hard facts.

You're a liar and a fool. Nothing more remains to be said.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 This book is free and its

 This book is free and its online. "The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory," by A.E. Wilder Smith Ph.D Ph.D Ph.D. It completely and utterly refutes evolution 100%. I highly recommend you read it.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/sa.htm

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Top evidences against

Top evidences against evolution: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists." -- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well, it was nice seeing you

Well, it was nice seeing you get owned and own yourself repeatedly. At this point you are pure unadulterated troll. Your every point has been refuted. You plagiarized idiots, when you could have ironically done as good a job as them or better(I've known 5 year olds who make as credible an argument). You ignore fact in favour of fiction. You preach instead of communicate. I will not miss you when you are banned.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:Top evidences

AL500 wrote:
Top evidences against evolution...
Before I even touch that on a scientific level, philosophically speaking, of what relevance is it that you (alledgedly) have evidence against evolution? How does that demonstrate a supernatural creator?What EVIDENCE do you have for your position? You seem to be of the bent that if you can shoot down current evolutionary theory that your position would be correct by default. I cannot begin to describe the logical mindfuck entwined in that.I can fill books with lectures on enodgenous retrogenes, coccyx retroposition, observed speciation, etc. What can you do? What empirical evidence can you offer to us?

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.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
He's plagarizing

He's plagarizing

"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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:

All forms of raw energy are destructive.

The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."

AL500 wrote:

This book is free and its online. "The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory," by A.E. Wilder Smith Ph.D Ph.D Ph.D. It completely and utterly refutes evolution 100%. I highly recommend you read it.

The hypocrisy in this comment is stunning. Do you really think I have not read it? You bandy this book around because the author is a PhD. That is your argument. Never mind the thousands of evolutionary biologists with PhDs. I'm a PhD you idiot! But you never see me saying "Shut up. You have to listen to me because I have a PhD". In fact, this was the first time I have ever mentioned it on the forum (usually I don't, but you have made me so angry that  I did)

Flaunting my own credentials as arguments would be appalling. But as for you...Flaunting someone else's credentials is the epitome of trolling.

All of your claims except this one are abiogenesis. That is chemistry and not my field. This one however, struck me as utterly absurd.

And allow me to point out that

a) You ignored me

b) Did not refute my claims

c) Copied and pasted (as opposed to me, mine was my own writing

d) plagarized (which will get you banned)

e) Have an inabilty to think for yourself, copying off creationst websites.

Now, to debunk your utter misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

 

This is a lengthy explanation of the entropy laws, and how they relate to life. I understand that many people have been using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as if it were a challenge to evolution. You can imagine how amusing I find this.

At any rate, we need to understand some basic concepts first. These are The laws of thermodynamics, entropy, enthalpy and free energy.

Let us imagine a box, a system closed off from the universe, with a cell inside it. The cell in a box is a closed system with a fixed amount of free energy. This system will have a total amount of Energy denoted E. Let us suppose the reaction A to B occurs in the box and releases a great deal of chemical bond energy as heat. This energy will increase the rate of molecular motions (transitional, vibrational and rotational) in the system. In other words it will raise the temperature.

However, the energy for these motions will soon transfer out of the system as the molecular motions heat up the wall of the box and then the outside world, which is denoted sea. Eventually, the cell in a box system returns to it’s initial temperature, and all the chemical bond energy released has been transferred to the surroundings. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the change in energy in the box (denoted ∆Ebox or just ∆E) must be equal and opposite to the amount of heat energy transferred out, denoted as h. Therefore ∆E=-h.

 

E in the box can also change during a reaction due to work done in the outside world. Suppose there is a small volume increase in the box (∆V) which must decrease the energy in the box (∆E) by the same amount. In most reactions, chemical bond energy is converted to work and heat. Enthalpy(H) is a composite function of work and heat, (H=E+PV). Technically it is the Enthalpy change (∆H) is equal to the heat transferred to the outside world during a reaction.

 

Reactions with a -∆H are exothermic, and ones with +∆H are endothermic. Therefore –h=∆H. The volume change in reactions is so negligible that this is a good approximation.

 

-h≈∆H≈∆E

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to predict the course of a reaction.

Let us consider 1000 coins in a box, all facing heads. It is a closed system, which, by definition, does not exchange energy input or output with the rest of the universe. States of high order have low probability. For instance, if we imagine a box with 1000 coins lying heads up, and we shake it twice, it is vastly more probable that we will end up with a chaotic arrangement of coins than the arrangement that we had previously. Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability. This movement towards high probability in a system where the energy is E, is progressive. In order for the entropy (the progression towards high probability) to be corrected, there must be periodic bursts of energy input, which would break the closed nature of the system. In this case, it would require someone to open the box and rearrange the coins.

Therefore, for a living organism to maintain order and increase order, there must be a useful energy input. For that to happen, there will be a useless energy output. Thus increasing the order in the cell will increase the disorder of the entire universe. In this way, we can imagine life forms and other complexities as islands of order in a universe progressing towards disorder. For this to happen, there must be a colossal influx of free energy all the time. This is one the requisites for life. As luck would have it, we have such a system: The sun.

We need a quantitative unit to measure this, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is

 

∆S= R log PB/PA

 

PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. R is the gas constant (2 cal/deg-1/mole-1) ∆S is measured in entropy units (eu).

 

In an example with a box containing one thousand coins all facing heads, the initials state (all coins facing heads) probability is 1. The state probability after the box is shaken vigorously is about 10^298. Therefore, the entropy change when the box is shaken is R log 10^298 is about 1370eu per mole of each container (6.02x10^23 containers). ∆S is positive in this example. It is reactions with a large positive ∆S which are favorable and occur spontaneously. We say these reactions increase the entropy in the universe.

 

Heat energy causes random molecular commotion, the transfer of heat from the cell in a box to the outside increases the number of arrangements the molecules could have, therefore increasing the entropy (analogous to the 1000 coins a box).The release of X amount of heat energy has a greater disordering effect at low temp. than at high temp. therefore the value of ∆S for the surroundings of the cell in a box denoted ∆Ssea is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by absolute temperature or

 

∆Ssea =h/T

 

We must now look at a critical concept: Gibbs Free Energy (G)

 

When observing enclosed bio-systems, we need to know whether or not a given reaction can occur spontaneously. The question regarding this is whether the ∆S for the universe is positive or negative for the reaction, as already discussed.

 

In the cell in a box system there are two separate components to the entropy change in the universe. The ∆S for the inside of the box and the ∆S for the surrounding sea. These must be added together.

 

For example, it is possible for an endothermic reaction to absorb heat therefore decreasing the entropy of the universe (-∆Ssea) but at the same time cause such a large disorder in the box (+∆Sbox) that the total ∆S is greater than zero. Note that ∆Suniverse=∆Ssea+∆Sbox. 13

For every reaction, ∆Suniverse must be >0. We have just encountered another way to restate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

In this case, the reaction can spontaneously occur even though the sea gives heat to the box during the reaction. An example of this is a beaker of water (the box) in which sodium chloride is dissolving. This is spontaneous even though the temp of the water drops as it is occurring.

 

The most useful composite function is Gibbs Free Energy (G) which allows one to deduce ∆S in the universe due to the reaction in the box. The formula is: G=H-TS.

 

For a box of volume V, H is the Enthalpy (E+PV), T is the absolute temperature and S is the entropy. All of these apply to the inside of the box only. The change in free energy in the box during a reaction is given as the ∆G of the products minus the ∆G of the reactants. It is a direct measure of the disorder created in the universe when a reaction occurs. At a constant temp, ∆G= ∆H+T∆S. ∆H is the same as –h, the heat absorbed from the sea. Therefore

 

-∆G= -∆H +T∆S or -∆G=h+T∆S Therefore -∆G/T=h/t+∆S

 

h/T still equals ∆Ssea but the ∆S in the above equation is for the box. Therefore.

 

-∆G= ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

 

A reaction will spontaneously proceed in the direction where ∆G<0, because it means that the ∆S will be >0. They are inverse functions of each other. For a complex set of coupled reactions involving many molecules, one can calculate ∆G by adding the ∆G of all the different types of molecules involved before the reaction, and comparing that to the ∆G of all the molecules produced by the end of the reaction. For example, comparing the ∆G of the passage of a single proton through the inner mitochondrial membrane across the electrochemical proton gradient to the ∆G for ATP hydrolysis, we can conclude that ATP synthase requires the passage of more than one proton for each molecule of ATP synthesized.

 

Let’s review:

2nd Law: Basically an expression dictating that the whole universe progresses towards disorder, and any reaction must contribute to that disorder. Disorder is energetically favorable and probability-wise favorable.

Heat Energy: The energy in the random motion and hubbub of molecular jostling and movement. This is basically a measure of temperature, but all reactions give off heat energy, which is irretrievable (another way to restate the second law). Heat energy is denoted h.

Enthalpy: A composite function of heat and work, but since ∆V is always next to nothing, we can regard it as the inverse of heat. Enthalpy is a measure of heat energy lost or ∆H=-h

Gibbs Free Energ

 

The total ∆G for a reaction measures how far from equilibrium the reaction is. The large negative ∆G for ATP hydrolysis means that the cell keeps it very far from equilibrium. Equilibrium is reached when the forward and backward rates of each reaction are precisely equal and the ∆G is zero. For ATP hydrolysis, this occurs when the vast majority of ATP has been hydrolyzed (because ATP hydrolysis is much more favorable than ATP synthesis), like in a dead cell.

 

What we can conclude is that every reaction must have a negative ∆G to occur.

 

But how? What about anabolism, free energy creation, energy stores? Many reactions in cells are energetically unfavorable. Most polymerizations are, oxaloacete generation, ADP condensation etc as well as supramolecular operation like ribosomal assembly, mitosis, mRNA synthesis etc

 

These seemingly impossible reactions make use of a key concept covered earlier. Let us return to our cell in the sea scenario. Except the cell is not in the box, it is in the sea, receiving free energy from the sun.

 

Recall: ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse

 

Except now it becomes: ∆Ssea +∆Scell =∆Suniverse

 

For an unfavorable reaction to occur, it must be coupled to a favorable reaction of higher magnitude. IN this way, even the order in the cell increases, the disorder in the sea increases by a greater amount therefore the ∆S is still positive and the ∆G is still negative, leaving the laws of thermodynamics intact.

 

There are a vast number of examples to choose from. Let us consider a typical unfavorable condensation reaction

 

A-H+ B-OH = A-B + H20

 

This reaction will not occur spontaneously. It cannot. It will create free energy of its own accord. That’s impossible. Fortunately there is a mechanism to bypass this.

 

A favorable reaction is coupled to it. ATP Hydrolysis is a favorable and readily occurring reaction where ATP splits one phosphanhydride to ADP, leaving a very reactive inorganic phosphate. This bond, because it is highly reactive, readily bonds with B-OH forming B-O-PO3.

 

This is called a high-energy intermediate. Because the bond is so high-energy, it will immediately react with B-H producing A-B + H2O + Pi + ADP

 

This concept exists in a huge number of reactions. Many reactions involve critical stepwise passing of high energy intermediate chains.

 

The cells must maintain order by maintaining a constant stream of biochemical catabolism and anabolism being driven by enzymes which lower the activation energy. Food is broken down from macromolecular giant biological polymers like polysaccharides, polypeptides, proteins and giant fatty acids by oxidation, electron carrying, and catalysis of favorable reactions into simple molecules like glucose, amino acids and glycerol. Some of this is in turn, catabolized to break the phosphate bonds which release heat energy to power the cell (and increase entropy in the universe). The rest of it is used to be anabolized again into giant structures in glycogen or lipid storage for later consumption or construction into cellular structures like ribosomes. All of these highly intricate metabolic pathways that do these things must be set in motion by thermodynamically favorable events.

For instance, imagine rocks falling off a cliff onto the ground. The kinetic energy is being converted into heat and sound. This is useless. But if we set up a turbine underneath the rock which powers a small hydraulic pump, we are obtaining useful work from free energy.

 

 

"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


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 I clearly refuted you. The

 I clearly refuted you. The video, book and link I gave also refute you. You know what? Atheists are not capable of being polite. You talk about how atheists don't need God to be moral? lol Give me a break! I have yet to see a moral atheist. And I have yet to see just one post where an ad hominem/name calling is not found.  Its not possible to have a decent dialogue with you at all. I've only been here for like a week, and all I've seen is name calling and ad hominems. You people NEED God badly lol. If we lived in an atheist world, we would have self-destructed thousands of years ago. I have refuted my opponents on every thread. I'm still waiting for Nook to respond to my "Historical Jesus"2 thread. Its been like a week.  NO, ATHEISTS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING MORAL. Life without God reduces a person to a total and complete asshole period. You know what? God exists! I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you. He's not going to cease to exist just to accomodate you. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I have more important things to do with my time then to discuss with immoral, unethical, biased, and brainwashed infidels.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen



deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  I clearly

AL500 wrote:

 I clearly refuted you. 

You? No. You plagarized from other people. You know next to nothing about science which is why you plagarize. You idolized your guy because he was a PhD. You continue to assert refutation yet you provide no counter-argument. This is because you lack the ability to do so as your knowledge of science is clearly awful because you are reduced to copying and pasting. This is clearly against the forum rules.

AL500 wrote:

 theists are not capable of being polite.

This is coming from a rude, arrogant jerk who deliberatly incites people. This is hypocrisy of the highest degree. You are a troll, you just admitted it.

 

AL500 wrote:

Its not possible to have a decent dialogue with you at all.

It is not possible to have ANY dialogue with you as you lack expertise and are reduced to plagarism. You are being rude, and when people (including the entire Mod Team I beleive) point this out, you lash out.

 

AL500 wrote:

I've only been here for like a week, and all I've seen is name calling and ad hominems.

I just gave you a huge slew of scientific evidence which you refuted by asserting I was wrong without an explanation why. That is not name-calling. Pointing out the obvious is not name calling. AllI have seen you do is rip off other people. This is pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

And what you are doing is deliberate incitement. 

AL500 wrote:
 

 ou know what? God exists! I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you. He's not going to cease to exist just to accomodate you.

Prove it you pathetic, dishonest, trolling, asshole. And don't you dare plagarize again or you will be banned immediately. You are incredibly rude, arrogant and hateful, and when people point this out you accuse them of having your own faults. Your projectionism is clear. You are being a total jerk.

AL500 wrote:

You people NEED God badly lol. If we lived in an atheist world, we would have self-destructed thousands of years ago. I have refuted my opponents on every thread. I'm still waiting for Nook to respond to my "Historical Jesus"2 thread. Its been like a week.  NO, ATHEISTS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING MORAL. Life without God reduces a person to a total and complete asshole period.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are going off on an irrelevant, and incredibly rude rant. How dare you criticize anyone with these sweeping generalizations when you yourself are acting like a fucking jerk?

 

 

 

"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


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
  Evolution

 

Evolution refuted:

"Mission Impossible: the Monarch Butterfly" by Ron Lyttle - http://www.creationism.org/batman/monarch.htm

"Evolutionists' 'Primordial Soup' Theory Being Replaced" by Stephen Caesar - CrtnismOrg/caesar/primordial.htm

"Louis Agassiz" by Bolton Davidheiser - http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp6no5.htm

"Jurassic Park: The New Orthodoxy?" by Trevor J. Major - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n2p23.htm

"Giraffes: Animals that Stand Out in a Crowd" by Lynn Hofland - CrtnismOrg/articles/giraffes.htm

"Biblical Creation and Personality" by Ellen Myers - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n1p16.htm

"Who Designed Woodpeckers?" by Thomas F. Heinze - CrtnismOrg/heinze/Woodpecker.htm

"Do Genetic Studies Demonstrate Evolution?" by Stephen Caesar - CrtnismOrg/caesar/genesevolution.htm

"Water, Water Everywhere . . . and not a Drop to Drink?" by O'Daniel - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-348.htm

"The Human Genome: A Creationist Overview" by Wood - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-335.htm

"The Unselfish Green Gene" by Demick - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-325.htm

"Evolution Is Biologically Impossible" by Mastropaolo - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm

"The Bible and/or Biology" by H. Morris - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-312.htm

"Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution" by Sherwin - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-304.htm

"Genetics" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp

"Origin of Life" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

"Thermodynamics and Order" AIG Section - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/thermodynamics.asp

"Mad Cow Disease and the Enormous Complexity of Protein Folding" CRS Newsletter (pdf) - http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2001/cm0606.pdf

"The DNA Disaster" CRS Newsletter (pdf) - http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2000/cm0503.pdf

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Posting links is not

 Posting links is not plagerizing. YOU are the one who has copied, pasted and plagerized. Give me a break.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Link-spewing is clearly

Link-spewing is clearly against the rules of the forum. This is the last straw AL500. You are not aware of this, but I have already conducted a poll with the mod team (only mods can read the mod forums) and they all agree: This is your last warning. If you act like this again, you will be banned. Not blocked. Permanently banned. And just so you know, not a single one of them stuck up for you. We'd all be very happy to see you go, so don't go handing us excuses to do it.

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  I clearly

AL500 wrote:
 I clearly refuted you.

Lie #1. You have been refuted.

AL500 wrote:

The video, book and link I gave also refute you.

Lie #2. They have been refuted.

AL500 wrote:
You know what?

Nope. Do you know who?

AL500 wrote:
Atheists are not capable of being polite.

Lie #3. Atheists are quite polite. Arrogant, projecting, and incorrect theists like yourself never get to see it, because you're so busy making us mad with your false notions that go against a demonstrably proven model.

AL500 wrote:
You talk about how atheists don't need God to be moral? lol Give me a break!

You no longer deserve one. We don't need your god to be moral. In fact, we are more moral without your god than you are with it.

AL500 wrote:
I have yet to see a moral atheist.

Projecting again.

AL500 wrote:
 And I have yet to see just one post where an ad hominem/name calling is not found.

This would be blatant lie #4.

AL500 wrote:
 Its not possible to have a decent dialogue with you at all.

Even more projection.

AL500 wrote:
I've only been here for like a week, and all I've seen is name calling and ad hominems.

Selective reading and projection.

AL500 wrote:
You people NEED God badly lol.

No we don't. You need a lack of god.

AL500 wrote:
If we lived in an atheist world, we would have self-destructed thousands of years ago.

Peaceful secular societies prove otherwise.

AL500 wrote:
I have refuted my opponents on every thread.

I believe that's your 5th blatant lie so far.

AL500 wrote:
I'm still waiting for Nook to respond to my "Historical Jesus"2 thread.

You were totally refuted in the first one. Why should he bother wasting more time on someone who ignores evidence presented against a subject?

AL500 wrote:
Its been like a week.

Don't hold your breath.

AL500 wrote:
  NO, ATHEISTS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING MORAL.

Blatant lie #6. You're still alive. If I weren't moral, I'd hunt you down personally. Smiling

AL500 wrote:
Life without God reduces a person to a total and complete asshole period.

Nope, but life with god does. You prove it.

AL500 wrote:
You know what?

I already told you no. Now I repeat my question: Do you know who?

AL500 wrote:
God exists!

Lie #7.

AL500 wrote:
I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you.

I could call this #8, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

AL500 wrote:
He's not going to cease to exist just to accomodate you.

Nor is he magically going to exist just because you want him to.

AL500 wrote:
There is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

And nothing we'd want to do about it.

AL500 wrote:
I have more important things to do with my time then to discuss with immoral, unethical, biased, and brainwashed infidels.

Then perhaps you should cut out your tongue. Every time you speak you will be hearing them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Posting links is not

Posting links is not plagerizing. YOU are the one who has copied, pasted and plagerized. Give me a break.

Plagarizing? No. This is my own work. I wrote it. I took the time, and have done the experiments. YOu know what, since you are so impressed by someone having a PhD, I'll say it.

I am a PhD in molecular biology

I am a PhD in molecular biology 

I am a PhD in molecular biology 

Are you impressed? Of course not. Why would you be. I dont expect you to be. So stop being a hypocrite. 

"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


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Posting links

AL500 wrote:
Posting links is not plagerizing. YOU are the one who has copied, pasted and plagerized. Give me a break.

 

deludedgod doesn't plagiarize his posts...a completely unfounded accusation and an insult to a person who works hard at his replies.   

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Thank you jread. I

Thank you jread. I appreciate you very much for sticking up for me.

In my other thread, I will respond in several hours, but I must leave now. I hope you know that I find you to be very intelligent, scholarly, and polite. I hope the troll could take a lesson from you on how one conducts themselves in a debate. 

"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


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: No! There is

AL500 wrote:

No! There is NO evidence for evolution. That's why more and more scientists are abandoning it every year.

Dude, what are you smoking?  Right now I could seriously use something that would enable me to deny reality.

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


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Posting links

AL500 wrote:
Posting links is not plagerizing. YOU are the one who has copied, pasted and plagerized. Give me a break.

deludedgod has absolutely no need to plagiarize.  He's a molecular biologist who sees, on a daily basis, that evolution is a fact.  In fact, I daresay that his work would not make sense without acknowledging the reality of Darwinian evolution.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I can't always understand your posts, deludedgod, because I don't have the necessary background education. Smiling 

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


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:   Evolution

AL500 wrote:

 

Evolution refuted:

-snipped out crappy links-

So, all you can do is spam links and plagiarize?  I'm impressed...not. 

Books on atheism, 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
AL500 wrote:   Evolution

AL500 wrote:

 

Evolution refuted:

TYPING REALLY BIG MAKES YOU RIGHT!!!!


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
jread wrote: AL500 wrote:

jread wrote:

AL500 wrote:
Posting links is not plagerizing. YOU are the one who has copied, pasted and plagerized. Give me a break.

 

deludedgod doesn't plagiarize his posts...a completely unfounded accusation and an insult to a person who works hard at his replies.   

Indeed, deludedgod is more knowledgable than myself on these topics, and I consider myself to be no slouch.

At any rate, jread, you're the kind of theist I enjoy talking to. It's always been a pleasure to converse with you. You are honest and earnest, and willing to hear what we have to say - I cannot ask for more more than that.

If all theists were more like you, there probably would not be an RRS.

Unfortunately, there are twits like AL500 in this world too. I would encourage you to help us in enlightening them, as I feel it would serve us both well.

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.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
jread wrote:

AL500 wrote:
Posting links is not plagerizing. YOU are the one who has copied, pasted and plagerized. Give me a break.

 

deludedgod doesn't plagiarize his posts...a completely unfounded accusation and an insult to a person who works hard at his replies.

Indeed, deludedgod is more knowledgable than myself on these topics, and I consider myself to be no slouch.

At any rate, jread, you're the kind of theist I enjoy talking to. It's always been a pleasure to converse with you. You are honest and earnest, and willing to hear what we have to say - I cannot ask for more more than that.

If all theists were more like you, there probably would not be an RRS.

Unfortunately, there are twits like AL500 in this world too. I would encourage you to help us in enlightening them, as I feel it would serve us both well.

Thanks for your kind words of understanding deleduded and yellow. In honor of this defense, I wrote a thread explaining my thoughts on this kind of theistic rudeness.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7739

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
WOW! How are you any

WOW! How are you any different then Muslum extremists??

How do you define morality?? If morality is hating gays, keeping women's rights down, keeping people ignorant about safe-sex and HIV, going to church on Sunday, fearing witchcraft, and praying in schools then Yes all atheists are immoral.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
AL500, just do yourself a

AL500, just do yourself a favour and stop now.

You're embarassing yourself.

 Perhaps what Deluded God is saying is too complicated for you, so I'll post my explaination of evolution written in laymans terms for you.

 

Misconceptions About The Theory Of Evolution

What is Science?


Statistically, the American public doesn't understand what science is, or how it works, which is why I include this.
Science is a particular branch of knowledge that deals with how humans categorize, study and view the world.
Science is a system that is free from passion; what I mean is that it is a rational, methodical process that does not allow personal feelings to come into play.
Any and every scientific law or fact has been tested using the scientific method.


What is the Scientific Method?


The scientific method is comprised of several separate steps. The most important of which are Hypothesis, Test, Conclusion, Falsifiability and then the experiments are subject to Peer Review.

Hypothesis is an idea about how something works. The scientist sees a natural phenomena and postulates an idea as to how said phenomena could work.

Test is when the scientist gathers evidence that would support the hypothesis. This is achieved through scientific experimentation in a controlled laboratory setting and a lot of research.

After testing, the scientist arrives at a Conclusion. In a conclusion the scientist verifies that the collected evidence supports his/her original hypothesis. If the evidence does NOT support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out. It can also be revised, but if it is, the scientist must go back to step one.

Falsifiability.
For an assertion to be falsifiable, one must be logically able to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. Remember, 'falsifiable' doesn't mean 'false'. For more on Falsifiability.

Peer Review occurs when the scientist has concluded that his evidence supports his hypothesis. He then submits his findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Then, accredited scientists worldwide attempt to disprove the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis can not be disproved by any scientist in the world, then the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

What is a Scientific Theory?

A scientific theory is something that has been proven true multiple times by using the scientific method.
The misconception is that when you use the word 'theory' in layman's terms, it means 'idea you made up'. However, when it is used in a scientific context, the word 'theory' takes on a much more serious meaning.

Theory, when used in a scientific context is an explanation that best fits all of the evidence available. A theory can take years to prove, and it must be agreed upon by the scientific community.

The reality is, that if evolution were erroneous, then it would have been thrown out again years ago. Scientists don't play favorites with their theories. In example, Newton's laws of Gravity were revised by Einstein when they were found to not adequately explain gravity in many adverse situations; this was Einstein's theory of relativity.
Gravity is "only" a theory.
Heliocentrism is "only" a theory.
In general, a theory is a collection of smaller scientific facts that are placed together to allow for an explanation of a larger topic.

Theory refers to a "logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts." - National Center for Science Education.

What is the Theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution is held up to the same level of scrutiny that any other scientific finding is subject to. Perhaps more, due to its controversial nature.
It is erroneous and kind of foolish to assert that the same scientific method that brings us flight, electricity, open heart surgery, space travel, the internet(I could go on like this) - was CORRECT about all of these things, but completely wrong about the theory of evolution.
The fact of the matter is that if there were compelling evidence against evolution, the theory would have been discredited and thrown out. For all of the criticism evolution has received from theists, not one piece of evidence has ever been able to discredit evolution, and they've been trying for 150 years.
Modern biology(ie medical science) is based on and dependent on the theory of evolution.

Evolution works off of at least 3 independent processes, and when taken together form what we mean by 'evolution'. These are replication, variation and selection, and they are all observable facts.
a> Replication is simply reproduction. Everything alive in nature reproduces, from the orchid to the oyster to the human.
b> Variation- How things change from the parent to the offspring.
-"shuffling": involves the various genes in male and female sex cells after these cells combine. The 'shuffling' puts together new gene combinations, thus making the offspring different from their parents(You have brown hair, your mother doesn't, etc).
-Mutation: rare changes in genes, usually inherited. Can occur as copying errors in early stages of cell reproduction. Mutations can be neutral, harmful or beneficial to the organism.
Yes, variations are random, but to deny they exist is an exercise in tedium.
c>If you've followed so far, you'll realize that things reproduce, and when they reproduce their offspring can be different from the parents in many ways, both good and bad. Some of these changes, say better eyesight, can be beneficial to the organism in question. Now we're down to Selection.
-Natural Selection is where these variations get tested. If a certain variation gives that individual a higher chance of survival, the odds increase that this individual will live long enough to reproduce and pass along this new trait. Natural Selection is not random. It does not 'decide' to let a particular variation get passed along to new generations en masse, rather it only allows that the beneficial variations do. To state that such a process is 'random' is to misunderstand it entirely. What can be random about only allowing beneficial deviations to pass en mass to future generations?
-Sexual Selection involves members of one sex preferring certain characteristics in the opposite sex and then choosing a mate based on those characteristics. How is this random? The preferred characteristics are the ones that are passed on because those are the animals that mate.
Put all of those things together, and that's how evolution works.
Once again, each and everything I've listed is an observable scientific fact.

Micro-evolution: small changes within a particular species.
Macro-Evolution: small changes that, over thousands or millions of years can lead to new species.

 

Now, which one of these observable, scientific fact(replication, variation, selection) do you believe doesn't happen? 

Please keep in mind that we have several PhD's on our forums who are far more versed in evolutionary biology than you, yourself are.

Please keep in mind that just because you read it on an apologetics website doesn't make it true. These people who oppose evolution do so for one reason - so that they can believe in a divine creator. I have never met a non-theist who opposed evolution, because they don't feel the need to believe that we were created 'special' by a god. The apologetics websites, the evangelicals, these people all have agendas, many of them are selling books, dvds and whatever else. People like Ray Comfort are making literally millions of dollars just simply by telling people what they want to hear. Can you point me to some evolutionary biologst who's making millions explaining evolution to people? No, you can't. Science doesn't have an agenda.

Please keep in mind that  all of those websites you posted have more than likely been debunked, and a quick google search would have shown you as much.

 


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
How about this...

Wow, someone says "evolution" and the forum goes "boom!" Laughing out loud

Maragon - I'm a non-theist and I think evolution is crap.  However, I'm willing to have my arguments proven wrong. 

Delugedgod, excellent posts, I love the complexity and thoroughness of your explanation. Finally, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about rather than some dumb atheist or theist who just shoots facts blindly into the air... like some of the other posts here (cough cough).

Let's try this...

Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Wow, someone says "evolution" and the forum goes "boom!" Laughing out loud

Maragon - I'm a non-theist and I think evolution is crap. However, I'm willing to have my arguments proven wrong.

Delugedgod, excellent posts, I love the complexity and thoroughness of your explanation. Finally, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about rather than some dumb atheist or theist who just shoots facts blindly into the air... like some of the other posts here (cough cough).

Let's try this...

Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

 

You're a non-theist?

Then how do you suppose everything got here?

 

Also, do you have any sources that you can cite that would prove that the claims you're levelling against scientists here are true? 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Wow, someone says "evolution" and the forum goes "boom!" Laughing out loud

Maragon - I'm a non-theist and I think evolution is crap.  However, I'm willing to have my arguments proven wrong. 

Delugedgod, excellent posts, I love the complexity and thoroughness of your explanation. Finally, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about rather than some dumb atheist or theist who just shoots facts blindly into the air... like some of the other posts here (cough cough).

Let's try this...

Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

We can't find every single intermediary between two species simply because of a lack of fossilized specimens. Very few animals are fossilized upon death. Most decay completley. It is only in extremely rare cases that we get fossilized bones or imprints at all. So, we must, absolutley must use the evidence we have and extrapolate the processes that led to these few isolated species that we actually can find.

Furthermore, if these were isolated species that were entirely unrelated we should expect to find them on the same rock stratum, and they should carbon date to about the same time. This is simply not the case. Human remains are not found in layers older than 7 or 8 hundred thousand years, while homo erectus, homo habilis, and austropithecus (sp?) can be. There is a clear ascent in time as well as more humanlike features evinced in the fossil record.

Even more convincing, DNA evidence clearly shows extreme similarity in all ape DNA, to such an extent that we can say when certain species broke off from the main line and formed their own taxonomic groups. These similarities are not only in functional areas, but also in the totally worthless "junk" DNA that litters each animal's genome.

From fossil evidence and DNA evidence, we can clearly see and map evolutionary trends. Scientists don't just look at a fossil and say, "gee, this looks like the other one!" Instead, they analyze the anatomical traits of the fossil to determine exactley where it lies in the evolutionary tree. In the ape example, for instance, they look at the relative forehead ridge sizes, the brain capacity, and the ridge on the top of the head (absent in humans, but visible in many ape-like human anscestors who used the ridge to support massive jawbones).

 The famous "walking man" picture is indeed an artists rendition for the public, but if this is all you know about evolution then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you, other than read more about the underlying mechanics of evolution, and then decide what the cranks say in their "refutations". A good place to start is the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

Really most of the resistance and skepticism I've seen about evolution has been due to ignorance of the subject material. If you really understand evolution, it absolutley makes alot of sense. I cannot imagine any living system that reproduces, mutates and dies that would not experience natural selection and thus evolution. There is really not much else to it, its so simple, mathematical and brilliant that I do not see any other viable alternative.

I wonder, if you don't think evolution occurs, what do you think happens instead? How did species become so diverse and well adapted to conditions? How is it that the fossil record and DNA evidence reports a clearly defined line of evolutionary progress? I would like to hear your answers, and since you are a "non-theist" as you say, I do hope they are not based on the "magic man done it" fallacy that plauges religion.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Wow, someone says "evolution" and the forum goes "boom!" Laughing out loud

Maragon - I'm a non-theist and I think evolution is crap.  However, I'm willing to have my arguments proven wrong. 

Delugedgod, excellent posts, I love the complexity and thoroughness of your explanation. Finally, someone who knows exactly what they are talking about rather than some dumb atheist or theist who just shoots facts blindly into the air... like some of the other posts here (cough cough).

Let's try this...

Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

By the way,

Elephant evolution

Girraffe evolution


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You're a

Quote:

You're a non-theist?

Then how do you suppose everything got here?

 

Also, do you have any sources that you can cite that would prove that the claims you're levelling against scientists here are true?

Maragon, if you read the bottom of all my posts it says "UNDECIDED".  I don't know, which is why I'm asking.  I don't claim to know everything, and I admittedly still have a lot to learn.  I'm just throwing some arguments against evolution out there and seeing what responses I get, because before I go either way I want hard, solid, proof.  Nothing else.  And don't give me the "there's plenty of proof for evolution!" either.  I'm looking, searching, hoping to find the truth.  Let someone more knowledgeable like Deludedgod explain to me how I am wrong (if I am).

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

You're a non-theist?

Then how do you suppose everything got here?

 

Also, do you have any sources that you can cite that would prove that the claims you're levelling against scientists here are true?

Maragon, if you read the bottom of all my posts it says "UNDECIDED". I don't know, which is why I'm asking. I don't claim to know everything, and I admittedly still have a lot to learn. I'm just throwing some arguments against evolution out there and seeing what responses I get, because before I go either way I want hard, solid, proof. Nothing else. And don't give me the "there's plenty of proof for evolution!" either. I'm looking, searching, hoping to find the truth. Let someone more knowledgeable like Deludedgod explain to me how I am wrong (if I am).

 

OKay Cap'n Arrogant.

Lets look at the facts here;

1- I posted a laymans guide to science, scientific method, scientific theory and what the theory of evolution actually says. Did you read it? If so, why do you believe that it doesn't happen?

2-You're copying and pasting arguments from apologetics sites without, a) verifying the source b) looking to see if there are any refutations already written to them here or elsewhere. 

3-All I asked was if you had any sources to back up your claim that scientists, " line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture." If you don't have any evidence that scientists do this, then why would you waste our time saying that they do?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

I cannot speak for this. That is paleontology, and it is not my field. I do not know how convincing the fossil record is. I have seen the evidence from molecular biology and genetics, and I can say now that absolutely nothing I see on a daily basis would make any sense whatsoever except in the context of evolution.

At any rate, the "big gaps" are not so big anymore, especially from the pan genus to homo sapiens. I think we have all 22 known species (We are what Jared Daimond calls "The Last Hominid", because we killed all the previous hominid species.

And if you are wondering why we do not have all the fossilizations of every link, it is because fossilization is an incredibly rare process. It is like demanding a complete cinematic of a murder as evidence for conviction. However, I must point out that to ask for a "transitional fossil" is a continuum fallacy.

The analogy I use is glucose oxidation, which is a stepwise process of electron transfer, not one of which involves adding oxygen (as that would set it on fire). Same thing here really, genetic divergence is slow, so if we have a simple (not anagenesis) example of population X and population Y of an organism, and population Y is geograhically seperated from X, and thusly pursues a different path of divergence, which is to say that what constitutes a genetic advantage changes. As homologies proliferate, as often does, Y becomes more genetically seperate from X (and X from Y as it diverges too). The divergence widens and phenotype becomes different, but it is still a worm, in terms of genetics. However, a speciative split comes when the divergence widens enough that they can no longer interbreed. This is not a noticeable event, because gene flow is a continuum process, but at a point in time, the divergence will widen enough that should X and Y meet again, they cannot exchange genetic material anymore. And that basic description is backed up by the fact that every stage can be tracked by genetic homology searches.

And that is what I mean when I said one species will never produce an offspring of a different species. No stage of that speciative flow involves this process, but it (speciative split) still occured.

 

 

"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


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
"There is NO evidence to

"There is NO evidence to support it"
Say what?

Even if there was no evidence to show that evolution happens in nature (which there is a ton of evidence for), it has been shown to work VERY well for solving very difficult problems.

Ever hear of genetic algorithms? They demonstrate the power of evolution for solving problems. Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation is a great document about genetic algorithms.

Lets quote from it what I believe to be the most jaw-dropping example:

Quote:

A field-programmable gate array, or FPGA for short, is a special type of circuit board with an array of logic cells, each of which can act as any type of logic gate, connected by flexible interlinks which can connect cells. Both of these functions are controlled by software, so merely by loading a special program into the board, it can be altered on the fly to perform the functions of any one of a vast variety of hardware devices.

Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".

This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997).

Also, given that several major corporations have used genetic algorithms to design products, this theory with "NO evidence" for it seems to work VERY well.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Oh yes. Genetic algorithms

Oh yes. Genetic algorithms on chemical circuitry is fantastic. It almost makes me wish I had done computational biology. With it you can create irreducibly complex systems and advanced intricacies that "appear designed". What it teaches us is to never underestimate the power of natural selection. It is a very powerful tool.

"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


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I clearly

AL500 wrote:
I clearly refuted you. The video, book and link I gave also refute you. You know what? Atheists are not capable of being polite. You talk about how atheists don't need God to be moral? lol Give me a break! I have yet to see a moral atheist. And I have yet to see just one post where an ad hominem/name calling is not found. Its not possible to have a decent dialogue with you at all. I've only been here for like a week, and all I've seen is name calling and ad hominems. You people NEED God badly lol. If we lived in an atheist world, we would have self-destructed thousands of years ago. I have refuted my opponents on every thread. I'm still waiting for Nook to respond to my "Historical Jesus"2 thread. Its been like a week. NO, ATHEISTS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING MORAL. Life without God reduces a person to a total and complete asshole period. You know what? God exists! I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you. He's not going to cease to exist just to accomodate you. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I have more important things to do with my time then to discuss with immoral, unethical, biased, and brainwashed infidels.

 

Respect is given where respect is warranted.  You have shown complete ignorance on the subject of evolution and your arguments and the ones given by your "book" have also been refuted.  You do not follow the course of the debate and you flaunt a Ph.d Ph.d Ph.d.   You resort to GOD EXISTS..GOD EXISTS..GOD EXISTS because it is YOU who are too afraid to be disappointed by the truth.  Fact of the matter is, there are many more scientists out there who support the theory of evolution, even christians.  You cling on to a book as if it's your bible.   Fact is...molecular biology has undoubtedly proven evolution beyond reasonable doubt.  If you want a real book to read.  Read the Making of the Fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution.  If you cannot trust DNA, then I suggest you start a campaign, against DNA testing in courts.  You are blind because you only see the evidence you want to see. THat is all. It is sad that you should take such narrow view of life.  

 Fact of the matter is, you have been refuted, beaten and emabarassed here, but are too blind to see it. 

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


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: NO, ATHEISTS ARE

Quote:

NO, ATHEISTS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING MORAL. Life without God reduces a person to a total and complete asshole period. You know what? God exists! I'm terribly sorry to disappoint you. He's not going to cease to exist just to accomodate you. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I have more important things to do with my time then to discuss with immoral, unethical, biased, and brainwashed infidels.

Dude, shut the f*** up.  If you can't even argue with intelligence and reason, we don't need you here.  What you say isn't law.  I've seen plenty of moral atheists.  There are even atheists in our armed forces out in Iraq dying FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.  I'd call that both moral and patriotic.  Few people even have the guts to fight for their enemy.  So shut up, or argue with reason.

In other news, I find it interesting that LeftofLarry mentions DNA.  I have a couple of arguments for DNA which counter evolution.  I will probably be proven wrong, but I want to remove all doubt from my mind before I make the biggest decision of my life (atheism or theism).

And yes, I have looked elsewhere for arguments against this, but have not found much.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate (for example, the mule). The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

 

This is mostly stuff I found, but I've added in a few points which hold to be true.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
masterjedidan wrote:

masterjedidan wrote:

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.

Yes there is, I've actually induced it before, then arrayed it on a karyotype. You should read the section I wrote on speciative mechanisms. It's called chromosomal polymorphism. Chromosomal fusion in polyploid organisms (more rarely in cyclic organisms that switch between haploid/diploid, although I have induced it in Saccharomyces cerevisiae). THe condition can be detected in thousands of species, as they undergo invariable transitions towards better symbiosis with the environment.

masterjedidan wrote:

Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change.

Well, if you believe that the monkey is the only species in the monkey-man gap, then that statement would be correct. Except that there are 22 more species in that gap (the Pan/Homonid orthologous split), the monkey just happens to be our closest surviving relative, because all the other Hominids went extinct, most of them killed by us. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. The family of organisms which the human belongs to (the homonids) evolved from monkeys.

MasterJediDan wrote:

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Oy vey. Not this again. I've studied DNA repair for a large portion of my career, and I assure you that it is not a limiting factor. THe enzymatic lockstep (it is controlled by ribosomal machines at the site of transcription) is operated on a feedback loop that only detects harmful mutations. Like I said, evolution is mostly about recombinative and shuffling and duplication mutations. DNA repair is a system to fix point mutations, which are mostly harmful, and when harmful, the enzymatic response performs , BER, MMR or NER (Base-excision, Nucleotide excision or mismatch repair) to correct the nucleotide incorrect arrangement (as it will be detected by the ribosomal transcription checkers). This is why nearly all divergences are preceded by duplication (homology.

Repair is designed to respond to two things

-Point mutations that are interrupting the transcription (these are sometimes called Stop codons or nonsense mutations)

-A physical break in the DNA strand

Not the evolution mutation mechanisms, which are recombination, homology, duplication and shuffling.

 

 

"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


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Yep, deluded god is

Yep, deluded god is correct. Many creationists try to debunk evolution with the "no new information" mantra, and cite the cell's error-checking machinery, when all they consider is point mutation.

Duplication creates new genetic code entirely that can mutate at will without the error checking mechanism (it simply skips over duplications), and later those duplications may be read in their mutated form, which may or may not be benificial to the organisms survival.

In fact, error checking actually ensures that evolution can occur. If there was no error checking, there would be so many mutations that after a few generations any given species would produce completley non-functional offspring. The error checking system allows only a few tiny changes to be made at a time, which ensures that the mutations are less likely to be life-threatening. Keep in mind that the error checking itself arose from evolutionary pressure, because early replicators in the primordial soup and later bacterium would have died off quite quickly if they mutated at too fast a rate. Natural selection tended to favor mutations that slowed the rate of mutations (if that makes any sense). It would have to have been one of the earliest evolutionary changes in history.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Evolution is based on

 Evolution is based on lies and deceit.

 

Creation Scientists debate (refute) Evolutionists. Free Online Videos at Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&mode=related&search=Richard Dawkins and 3,000 other evolutionists refused to debate this manhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k&mode=related&search=

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Evolution is

AL500 wrote:

Evolution is based on lies and deceit.

 

Creation Scientists debate (refute) Evolutionists. Free Online Videos at Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&mode=related&search=Richard Dawkins and 3,000 other evolutionists refused to debate this manhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k&mode=related&search=

/Mod hat on/

AL500, you posted this same thing in multiple threads.  This constitutes spamming as stated in the rules:

 

2.4. Spam.
The posting of spam to promote products, sites, or services not affiliated with RationalResponders.com, FreethinkingingTeens.com, Atheistnetwork.com, InfidelGuy.com, FreethoughtMedia.com, or any other site in the NoGodNetwork.com roof is strictly prohibited. Interested parties are welcome to take out ad-space at our affordable rates instead. Contact Offenders will be exiled and content deleted on sight.

Cross-postings, hit-and-run proselytism, and other posts that create unreasonable janitor-chores for the moderators may be removed without notice and sanctioned either by exile or temporary ban depending on the nature of the spam at the call of the moderator.

 

I am leaving this post here because this thread is about evolution.  I will delete the ones in other threads.  Please refrain from doing this again.

/Mod hat off/ 


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  Evolution

AL500 wrote:

 Evolution is based on lies and deceit.

 

Creation Scientists debate (refute) Evolutionists. Free Online Videos at Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&mode=related&search=Richard Dawkins and 3,000 other evolutionists refused to debate this manhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&mode=related&search=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k&mode=related&search=

 

Kent hovind and people who use his arguments have been debunked multiple times on RRS and elsewhere.  No one in the scientific community takes him seriously.  It's like asking bozo the clown to come and talk about molecular kinetics of erythrocyte binding ligands in a malaria conference.  Of course he's not taken seriously...the fact that you believe his bullshit does not say much about your level of intelligence, either that, or you're very naive.  I recomment reading real science books...and listening to people who actualy have real PhD in molecular and evolutionary biology.  This guy is a joke. 

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


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Dr. Hovind takes three

Dr. Hovind takes three different evolutionists at the same time from different fields so they cannot use the "that is not in my field" excuses this time.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWwThe reason atheists don't want to believe in God is because if He exists it means there are rules to life. Atheists don't want rules.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen