Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

Why don't you prove John wrong by actually saying something? Your last two messages average a half-line of text each, so I'd give the edge to John at this point.--Percy

About the PRIMORDIAL SOUP (forming of a cell from small molecules) nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!! So therefore the question should instead be:"What would not convince you that evolution has happened?"Then there is mutations! Very very vitally important protein transduction pathways must be there for the organism to live. Dubble genes and new proteins dont make it more complex, because when they become to many they destroy these vitally important protein systems rather than making new ones. I see different protein transduction pathways as an indication of different created kinds.
Say that I go to a pharmacy and buy a different medicine BY CHANCE once a week. During that time I take/swallow from all the medicines Ive got one time each day. I keep buying new ones and the same ones as the weeks before. The question is: When will i die?Molecular similarity: Ok, There youve got something! Chimps and humans have identical haemoglobin and cytochrome Ive heard. And we are similar. But there is no problem for a technician to make a new very similar radio with slight changes.
And ABOUT those changes that differ us from the apes. CAN they happen by mutations? Even though we are very similar one must focus on the differences.
May be so that the ape-kind was created last of all the animals. Next day God made the same cells, but WITH changes. The chimps was the ones in the ape-kind that happened to mutate or combine genes so that they became more similar to us (exept from the hips, brain, faculty of speech). Gorillas mutated and combined genes "away" from us.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
[B]About the PRIMORDIAL SOUP (forming of a cell from small molecules) nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!! [/QUOTE]You are confusing Abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution.Abiogenesis is the theory that life was naturalistically formed from non-life.The Theory of Evolution explains what happened to that life once it got here, not how it got here.Also, if you have decided to flat out not accept evidence if it would mean accepting any scientific theory, no matter how overwhelming, then you are thinking dogmatically, not scientifically, and you can talk about proteins and mutations all you want but it is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

The Theory of Evolution explains what happened to that life once it got here, not how it got here.

---

And what would probably happen to that life if it got there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Also, if you have decided to flat out not accept evidence if it would mean accepting any scientific theory, no matter how overwhelming, then you are thinking dogmatically, not scientifically, and you can talk about proteins and mutations all you want but it is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

---

No, I accept the evidence! Talking about proteins and mutations is to think scientifically, not dogmatically.

[QUOTE][b]nothing you say will convince me of evolution.[/QUOTE][/b]In that case, can you really call your views "rational"? Are you being honest and fair to yourself? One more thing: do you think this is an acceptable attitude to do science? [QUOTE][b]The chimps was the ones in the ape-kind that happened to mutate or combine genes so that they became more similar to us[/QUOTE][/b]We have a 98% DNA match to chimps. You have posed two possible explanations (1) They suddenly mutated 98% of their DNA to match ours (2) they 'combined' genes (mated) with us or amongst themselves to look like us.In a murder case where a DNA match was found, do you think either of those explanations would not be laughed at? What is the probability that they would 'just happen' to have a 98% match? Some Creationists like to attempt probability arguments against evolution but this one blows them all completely away.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

In that case, can you really call your views "rational"? Are you being honest and fair to yourself? One more thing: do you think this is an acceptable attitude to do science?

---

Just because of the primordial soup and mutations I think evolution doesnt work. Its rational and acceptable to science to think something is impossible when the chance are 1 out of 10^(80.000)

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

We have a 98% DNA match to chimps. You have posed two possible explanations (1) They suddenly mutated 98% of their DNA to match ours (2) they 'combined' genes (mated) with us or amongst themselves to look like us.

​

In a murder case where a DNA match was found, do you think either of those explanations would not be laughed at? What is the probability that they would 'just happen' to have a 98% match? Some Creationists like to attempt probability arguments against evolution but this one blows them all completely away.

---

No, I mean: If our DNA was 97,5% similar to the ape-ancestor from the beginning, the chimps in thousands of years got themselves a DNA with a similarity of 98% to us. Thousands of years with many generations is different from the few hours (or what time it takes) of finding a DNA match in a murder case. The gorillas happened to have slight changes differing from us in thousands of years. "The chimps got more sixes on their die" and "gorillas got more "ones" on their die."Similarity of DNA is one thing. Another thing is the information it actually tell the organism. I focus on the phenotypically differences between us and apes.

Actually, you said "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!"Why, exactly should anyone engage in any discussion or debate when you jump in by declaring your close mindedness?Please read your own words above, and realize how they must sound to others.What if, for example, we said, "actually, your statements about probability are wrong, and here is an explanation...(etc)". Would you actually bother to read and understand the explanation? Your quote, with which I opened this post, implies you would not care what we said. Perhaps you should consider taking back that statement...

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 06-23-2002]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because of the primordial soup and mutations I think evolution doesnt work. Its rational and acceptable to science to think something is impossible when the chance are 1 out of 10^(80.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That statement isn't true at all. But before you can understand why I should explain a little about probability applied to the real world. In probability if you take a billion possible outcomes that are all equally likely to occur and put them in a bag and then draw one out, the probability that you will draw a specific one is one in a billion. This means that if you were to look at each individually you would come to the conclusion that the "odds" of any one happening are so awful that none of them will. However, one must. Now apply this to "primordial soup and mutations". The probability that some atoms would come together to make life are just the same as if they were to come together to produce granite or any other material. The odds against each possible substance being formed were astronomical, yet one was. And it just so happened that it created life. My point is that life was just as likely to occur as any other outcome.

^ You started of well but your conclusion is simply incorrect octipice and we'll see if the evolutionists on this board can tell you why.

In probability if you take a billion possible outcomes that are all equally likely to occur and put them in a bag and then draw one out, the probability that you will draw a specific one is one in a billion. This means that if you were to look at each individually you would come to the conclusion that the "odds" of any one happening are so awful that none of them will. However, one must. Now apply this to "primordial soup and mutations". The probability that some atoms would come together to make life are just the same as if they were to come together to produce granite or any other material. The odds against each possible substance being formed were astronomical, yet one was. And it just so happened that it created life. My point is that life was just as likely to occur as any other outcome.Me (Zauruz): The probability to draw ONE of these billion grains os sand is one in a billion. So before I draw a grain of sand someone else decide which one I will draw. I wouldnt take the right one I think. But if he decide that ANY of these grains should be picked, then the chance is one of one.
A granit is just a mixture of particular atoms/molecules I think. The atoms in the granite could have many many many ways to lie next to each other.

Obs. The first part of the former message is from Opticle!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:

Actually, you said "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!"

​

Why, exactly should anyone engage in any discussion or debate when you jump in by declaring your close mindedness?

---

Because they should engage in trying to convince me. Tell me how abiogenesis is possible then, so that I stop having a closed mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:

Please read your own words above, and realize how they must sound to others.

​

What if, for example, we said, "actually, your statements about probability are wrong, and here is an explanation...(etc)". Would you actually bother to read and understand the explanation? Your quote, with which I opened this post, implies you would not care what we said. Perhaps you should consider taking back that statement...

---

YES, I would read your explanations, I would! But I dont think I would be impressed.

I think the point being made about probabilities is that
you cannot apply a probablity to something that has
already happened.Before I roll the die, there is a 1:6 chance of getting
a 5.After I roll a 5, probabilities are meaningless.Not sure where you got your 10^80,000 from either, perhaps
you could elaborate that since it seems to be the crux of
your problem in accepting evolution.The answer to my original post I think, for you, is
'convince me of abiogenesis and evolution becomes more
credible.'Would that sum up your position better than 'Nothing will
convince me?'Personally I'm not sure how abiogenesis supports evolution,
but many of the anti-evo arguments rely on that, so it's
worth discussing (there is a separate thread for that), but
this particular discussion could continue here for now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

Not sure where you got your 10^80,000 from either, perhaps
you could elaborate that since it seems to be the crux of
your problem in accepting evolution.

---

I see here in my book that I confused it with the calculated number of electrons in the whole universe, which is 10^80. But according to my book with some notes one have calculated the chance to be:
* One out of 10^40.000
* One out of 10^57.800
* one out of 10^450
According to Borel, a french expert on probability, an event shouldnt never ever anywhere in universe occur if the probability for it is smaller than one out of 10^50

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

The answer to my original post I think, for you, is
'convince me of abiogenesis and evolution becomes more
credible.'

​

Would that sum up your position better than 'Nothing will
convince me?'

---

I have to be convinced of both abiogenesis and about mutations, otherwise I wouldnt be convinced of evolution.Ok, I spoil that position "Nothing will convince of what you say" for a while and give you people a chance to convince me.

quote:

---

Schrafinator:

​

The Theory of Evolution explains what happened to that life once it got here, not how it got here.

​

Z: And what would probably happen to that life if it got there.

---

Huh? Sorry, I do not understand what this means.

quote:

---

riginally posted by schrafinator:

​

Also, if you have decided to flat out not accept evidence if it would mean accepting any scientific theory, no matter how overwhelming, then you are thinking dogmatically, not scientifically, and you can talk about proteins and mutations all you want but it is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

​

Z: No, I accept the evidence!

---

You just said that NOTHING could ever be presented to you that would convince you that Evolution occurs. This means that you will not ever accept any evidence which would convince you, right?Are you now changing your mind, and there is some evidence, if it came to light, which would convince you? If so, please explain.

quote:

---

Z: Talking about proteins and mutations is to think scientifically, not dogmatically.

---

Um, no, not necessarily. Talking about proteins or whatever, yet all the while being unwilling to budge one inch WRT the evidence and how you view a scientific theory, no matter what evidence comes before you, means that you are not thinking scientifically.To think scientifically, you must always be willing to change your views if the evidence suggests that you do so. Science is evidence-driven, not driven by religious or dogmatically-held views. You have already stated that you are not willing to do this. Therefore, you are not thinking scientifically. It doesn't matter how much you talk about proteins; you aren't doing so with a scientific mindset. What you are doing is deciding ahead of time what is "true" and attempting to pick and choose what evidence confirms your ideas and ignoring the rest. Science is conducted by gathering the evidence first, then theories are built around that evidence.You have things backwards.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"