PROOF against evolution

The first fish to explore land probably had both, similarly to the modern lungfish.Creating life in a laboratory would not prove evolution, it would show that abiogenesis was possible, abiogenesis and evolution are related but distinct issues.I would be interested in your source claiming that there have always been substantial levels of atmospheric oxygen. There is certainly oxygen present in the Urey Miller experiment unless they used that special water that doesnt contain oxygen.There are 20 amino acids on a strand of what?How can 200 amino acids be needed for life when there are only 20 naturally occuring amino acids, do you mean that the smallest peptide you are familiar with is 200 amino acids long?As for changing the word christmas to zebra I would point out that the word bag can easily be change to the word gab, that is more the sort of scale of change evolutioniary biologists consider, especially as the genetic code only consist of four bases and neither zebra nor christmas is composed of only four letters. Rearrangement is also by no means the only form of mutation.The first single celled organism to reproduce sexually probaly also had the capacity to reproduce itself asexually, consequently it probably mated with its own clone.Your post is full of scientific errors and baseless assertions, either provide some actual evidence for your wild claims or withdraw them.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-14-2003]

Way to evade the question yxifix, especially such an easy one.If you want step by step speculation on every single nucleotide mutation and chromosomal event neccessary to change a unicellular species into a modern vertebrate we may need an awfully long amount of time.

Well make your mind up, you just said it was very easy!All you seem to be doing is using the same old first cause argument but changing information for cause. The primary origin of the information content of the universe is not something we can determine, this does not mean it was derived supernaturally.You seem to spend half your time making some sort of argument against abiogenesis, how is this relevant to macro-evolution? What in fact do you mean by macro-evolution? Speciation, gross morphological changes, something different again?TTFN,WK

That is what you said to Pink Sasquatch, you then totally failed to address his question, despite it being 'easy'.I fail to see how Mark 24 being a demagogue or otherwise is relevant to answering a fairly straightforward question from Pink Sasquatch.How does your argument that Differ from the argument that the first cause cannot itself have a cause. At best all you are arguing is that there was some supernatural source of 'The first information', but that certainly doesn't provide proof against evolution. There is already plenty of extant information present in the system before evolution comes into the picture. Yes, but I don't intend to read the whole thing again just to see what particular definition of 'macro-evolution' you may have used. You appear not to have read the whole discussion though since you previously suggested that it should only be read from page 18, in order that your posts not appear off topic. If you had read the whole thread then you might have noticed that I was the 3rd person to post on it. So perhaps since you only came to the thread halfway through you should take more care directing other people to read the whole thing. As has been pointed out previously were you to have read every post on the site, or even much of the starting source materials provided, you would already have the answers to most of your questions, you may not have liked them, believed them or understood them, but you would have had them.So why not change the current trend and specify exactly what definition of 'macro-evolution' you are going by. Alternatively you could just use your encyclopedic recall of every post on this thread to direct to the post in which you gave a definition for 'macro-evolution'.TTFN,WK

Oh yes, of course, he hasn't provided specific muatations linke to the evolution of hair, nails, teeth, lungs, etc... and therefore his being unable to provide an exhaustive list of every mutation leading to the development of modern vertebrates clearly exonerates you of the burdern of answering a very simple question. Sorry, I got mixed up since you have been banging on about Mark24's demagoguery but I didn't notice you describing Pink sasquatch like that previously, so you have yet to even show that he is employing demagogic rhetoric. So your contention is that if your proof is insufficient the I have to be able to show you what the proof is, even if what you want proved isn't actually provable, before you will admit that what you presented wasn't actually proof?Doesn't that seem a bit illogical to you? I've seen any number of answers to you on this thread alone, and they have all been as water off a duck's back on you. No you aren't, you are recounting an already very well known experiment which showed that the old concept of spontaneous generation, such as flies growing from rotting meat, was mistaken. As has previously been pointed out this experiment is not a proof, it is however an incredibly well supported observation. It is also entirely irrelevant to evolution and even to chemical evolutionary theories of abiogensis, none of which presupose something arising from nothing, except perhaps right back at the very start of the universe.Did you ever give a reference for your supposedly often repeated computer exeriment, I didn't notice one. And once again, an experiment is not proof, it merely supports or fails to support a given hypothesis. Ah, an example of a proof? Easy enough here is an example of a mathematical proof and here are some proofs more in line with your thinking.TTFN,WK

How convenient that your principles allow you to evade direct questions. Your question was not clear because that wasn't what you asked. What you said was I already answered whether it was a proof or not, as has almost everyone else on this thread, and the answer is no. Given the disjointed natur of this paragraph it seems somewhat rich for you to desire a clear answer. The results of experimentation will not prove anything, they will support or fail to support specific hypotheses. Experiments provide no proof, only support. OK, a short digression on the nature of proof. Mathematical and logical proofs are the only proofs in the sense of 'a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it'. You proof is not a logical proof as it does not satisfy these criteria. The experimental evidence you discuss might be sadi to be proof in the sense of 'any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something', in much the same way as the results of an experiment help to establish the truth by supporting specific hypotheses. This sort of proof is only conditional however, it does not establish any absolute truth. If you wanted to absolutely prove it then yes, you would need to show it to be the case on every computer, of the type you were studying, for all time. You could however draw conclusions from only a moderately sized sample run over a reasonable length of time, but this would not be proof, only support for the hypothesis that the computer will not perform the operation without human input.But even with all this no one is arguing that Pasteur's experiment is in any real doubt, simply that it is not a proof except in the sense of offering very strong support for a specific hypothesis. That hypothesis says nothing to the possibility of abiogenesis however as abiogenesis, as in the development of living things from non-living chemicals, does not require bacteria to form in sterile water.TTFN,WK

Given your previous defintion of demagogy all this really means is that you don't believe something. Demagogy relies in the fact of which I am trying to convinve you being false even if all of my reasoning and all the evidence I provide is sound. Unless you can provide some evidence that the fact is false all yours cries of 'demagogy' add up to nothing more than stuffing your fingers in your ears. Yes your question was clear when you restated it in a subsequent post! Your first quote was from my message 501 but the question which was unclear was from post 490 and my initial statements concerning how mixed up that question was were in post 495, you restated the question in your subsequent post. That is exactly what science does all the time. As Crash so clearly pointed out to you proof and evidence are not always synonymous, I already made the distinction between logical or mathematical proofs and the sort of proof which is merely evidence in support of a hypothesis. Oh, you were doing so well, right up until the point where you stated your specific hypothesis. That isn't a specific hypothesis addressed by your experiment. All your experiment shows is that a computer without human input will not run a program to select a random letter. I'd be quite happy to agree with that finding. As has already been suggested, some of your analogies are pretty weak.TTFN,WK

I understand. You are right that you don't need to prove it to me but you do need to show in what way it is a proof if you expect anyone to actually agree with you. None of this shows that the facts I was trying to convince you of were false and my statements therefore demagoguery. In terms of proof being evidence in support of a hypothesis? A result of a suitably well designed and executed experiment would be proof (as in evidence) in favour of or against a specific hypothesis. You might as well stop saying this, I promise that we will all take it as read that any post of yours is bound to accuse whoever you are debating with of demagogy. Except that the bit that I said stopped at the point where you got to '->' the hypothesis you then suggested the experiment supported was entirely your own, and not one which the experiment would actually offer support, let alone proof, for. No, I am not saying that evolution is nonsense. None of your 'definitions' are proved, all they are is asserted. Still not true all I said was that 'A result of experiment with a computer is not a proof but it offers very strong support for a specific hypothesis.' The hypothesis that it supports is one I clearly stated, that the computer will not perform a specific operation without human intervention, it is ''intelligence' needed when life was created'. That is a ludicrously illogical leap in reasoning.TTFN,WK