Evolution has been Disproven

quote:

---

What do you mean by "law of probability is 10 to the 50th power"? It is a meaningless statement to me.

---

Probably a reference to "Borel's Law", which is a confusion popular among some creationists. The idea is that any probability smaller than 10^-50 can be treated as impossible. Talk.origins has a FAQ on the subject: Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions.

It's a meaningless statement to anybody, but some people understand where it comes from. Juhrahnimo's referring to Borel's "Law". Borel's law is not a law, it's a rule of thumb, and the common creationist choice of 1 in 10⁵⁰ as a probability level which divides the possible from the essentially impossible is not supported by Borel's work or any science or mathematics. As you no doubt know, the choice of a probability level at which we ignore the possibility of some event happening depends on the situation.The latest practitioner of this claptrap is William Dembski with his "universal probability bound".A simple demonstration how sily any universal probablity bound is: take two decks of cards, shuffle them, and lay the cards out on a table in a line. The probability of the arrangement you are looking at, before you laid out the cards, was 1 in 10¹⁶⁶. But it happened. For more improbable events, add more decks of cards.Of course, this is a digression from the real point, which is that nobody thinks that left-handed amino acids came to be or joined to form proteins by chance; they did so in acordance with the laws of chemistry and the surrounding environment (catalytic surfacesa and the like). We don't yet have a good theory of how it happened, but "chance" isn't even in the runnning.

quote:

---

You hit it right on the head. And the REASON they distance themselves from abiogenesis is the "amino acid problem" that is absolutely insurmountable.

---

No, the reason evolutionists (professional ones, I mean) distance themselves from abiogenesis is that it is a problem from a different field, requiring different knowledge and different methods to address. Evolutionists also distance themselves from problems in particle physics and meteorology, and for the same reasons.

quote:

---

And third, they "lack any credible alternative theory" because they don't want to consider GOD as the owner of this chunk of real estate, and that he made some rules for anyone who wants to live here (rules like "thou shalt not bear false witness" and "thou shalt not covet" and "thou shalt not use God's name in vain", etc). If they leave God out, they will NEVER have a credible alternative theory.

---

I also recall those rules including something about not judging others, and yet here you are judging the motives of people you've never met. Go figure. As it happens, I do believe (as a matter of faith) that God is the owner of this chunk of real estate, so I'm unlikely to find your guesses about my motives persuasive. I will note that this is the kind of combined ignorance and arrogance that give creationism (and often Christianity as a result) a bad name.I'm happy to consider an alternative hypothesis that includes God. Could you state one, please? One that adequately addresses all of the data we do have about biology, and not just the data we don't have about how life started?

Yeah. Except that homochirality isn't a problem. Try this on for size:Bailey JM, 1998, "RNA-directed amino acid homochirality", FASEB J 12:503-507

quote:

---

The phenomenon of L-amino acid homochirality was analyzed on the basis that protein synthesis evolved in an environment in which ribose nucleic acids preceded proteins, so that selection of L-amino acids may have arisen as a consequence of the properties of the RNA molecule. Aminoacylation of RNA is the primary mechanism for selection of amino acids for protein synthesis, and models of this reaction with both D- and L-amino acids have been constructed. It was confirmed, as observed by others, that the aminoacylation of RNA by amino acids in free solution is not predictably stereoselective. However, when the RNA molecule is constrained on a surface (mimicking prebiotic surface monolayers), it becomes automatically selective for the L-enantiomers. Conversely, L- ibose RNA would have been selective for the D-isomers. Only the 2' aminoacylation of surface-bound RNA would have been stereoselective. This finding may explain the origin of the redundant 2' aminoacylation still undergone by a majority of today's amino acids before conversion to the 3' species required for protein synthesis. It is concluded that L-amino acid homochirality was predetermined by the prior evolution of D-ribose RNA and probably was chirally directed by the orientation of early RNA molecules in surface monolayers.

---

Let me know if there's something you don't get from the article.You should also look at Ghadiri MR et al, 2001, A chiroselective peptide replicator, Nature 409:797-801.

quote:

---

The origin of homochirality in living systems is often attributed to the generation of enantiomeric differences in a pool of chiral prebiotic molecules1, but none of the possible physiochemical processes considered can produce the significant imbalance required if homochiral biopolymers are to result from simple coupling of suitable precursor molecules. This implies a central role either for additional processes that can selectively amplify an initially minute enantiomeric difference in the starting material1 or for a nonenzymatic process by which biopolymers undergo chiroselective molecular replication. Given that molecular self-replication and the capacity for selection are necessary conditions for the emergence of life, chiroselective replication of biopolymers seems a particularly attractive process for explaining homochirality in nature. Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle. The chiroselective amplification process discriminates between structures possessing even single stereochemical mutations within otherwise homochiral sequences. Moreover, the system exhibits a dynamic stereochemical 'editing' function; in contrast to the previously observed error correction, it makes use of heterochiral sequences that arise through uncatalysed background reactions to catalyse the production of the homochiral product. These results support the idea that self-replicating polypeptides could have played a key role in the origin of homochirality on Earth.(references in original deleted for clarity).

---

Obviously, you are apparently one of the few that still thinks the homochirality problem is an insoluable issue. You really ought to get out more.edited to fix url problemsThis message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-09-2005 09:27 AM

Briefly, since this is off topic, I'll consider the three definitions of you found of Unitarian: Organizationally on a national level, the Unitarians merged with the Universalists in the 1950s, but most individual churches went their own way for years. As recently as 20 years ago there was a Unitarian church nearby that I attended. But time fought a gradual war of attrition, and while I'm sure there are still some purely Unitarian churches left in the United States, there are none near me. They are all Unitarian/Universalist churches now, and if you attend a service you'll hear a sermon about the evils of nuclear power, about Greenpeace, about saving the whales, about conserving our environment, but not about God, Jesus and the Bible.Unitarianism used to be the primary refuge for those leaving Judaism, typically because of marriage to a gentile, but I cannot verify whether that is still the case. That your definition fails to mention this strong connection between Unitarianism and Judaism leads me to question it somewhat. At my old church, a large star of David carved from a single piece of wood was prominently displayed behind the pulpit. Until well into adulthood I mistakenly believed that Unitarians were Christians, so I don't think of myself in this way. This probably comes closest to how I think of myself. Of course, Christianity includes acceptance of the trinity, and so I wouldn't normally describe myself as Christian.The description at uua.org makes me want to barf. What a weasely mash of New Age feel-goodism! If there is ever a movement to split the churches again so that the Universalists can take their "whatever you want to believe" approach" and go, I'm all for it.--Percy

Absolutely? Pretty strong language....How about the study by Ribo, et al., Science, vol 292, pp 2063-2066 (2001), where they showed a stong selection for formation of chiral molecules by "whirlpooling" the solution they were in? How about Rikken and Raupach, Nature, 405, 932-935 (2000), where they got enantiomeric excesses in a simple metal complex by either shining circurarly polarized light through the solution, or just used unpolarized light in a magnetic field?

I always enjoy the amino acids couldn't do it without guidence argument. Kinda like sodium chloride needs instructions to form a cube. Then there is the amazing item carbon. Sometimes it links up with four other carbon atoms to form tetrahedrons. Sometimes it forms sheets of linked hexagons where the sheets are held together only by weak bonds.Here there are no instruction sets, only carbon, nothing but carbon. Yet the difference between the two final products is enormous, one hard, one soft and slippery.And then there is ... footballene

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for the answers and responses from so many of you. I'll just use this ONE post to respond to all of you to keep this thread from loading up with too many posts from one member.To those of you who attack my Chrisitanity, thanks, you just fulfilled prophecy (again).To those who evaded the main issue and attacked out-of-context sidebar issues, I have no real comment since you didn't either.To those who actually addressed the issue, thank you. We can discuss a few points:Where did the RNA come from that produces these L-amino acids? (see post 110 regarding quetzal's mention of Bailey JM, 1998, "RNA-directed amino acid homochirality", FASEB J 12:503-507). The chicken and egg problem is very real, and remains unaddressed despite your post. Your post just creates one MORE problem for you. You might be better off talking about life being brought here by aliens.And the problems of "folding", "oxidation" (or lack of oxygen (think: ozone) is even worse), replication, and others are only dodged at best. One weak theory to support another; a common diversionary tactic that causes the listener to forget how ludicrous the original theory is. If enough "supporting" theories are developed, eventually we'll come up with something that actually makes sense in itself, and we'll think "yeah! That makes sense!" while forgetting how ridiculous the original theory is. Sort of like this:Theory: Chocolate ice cream evolved from rotting elephants tusks in Africa.
Question: Huh?
Answer: Natives from the immediate vicinity dumped their garbage on top of an elephant carcass.
Question: I didn't know tusks could rot. So, what, um, then?
Answer: Bird and rat feces chemically reacted with some of the garbage and the resulting broth bonded with the rotting tusks. This process killed most of the bacteria on the tusks, but some mutated super-bacteria survived and chemically reacted with some other chemicals which resulted in a kind of choclately flavor according to witness reports from the area.
Question: Ah, yes. Witness statements, of course. But what about the ice-cream part?
Answer: This all happened at the base of the Mountains of the Moon in Africa (see evidence) and during a season of heavy mountain snow, there was HUGE avalanche that buried the elephant tusks and bones. After many decades, researchers discovered the chocolate ice-cream as the ice/snow receded.
Question: That's ridiculous. How does snow and a "Choclately flavor" equal Chocolate ice-cream?
Answer: There were some other processes involved as well, but you would need to get an education to understand. Basically, the local dogs deposited more feces on the site and, just before walking away, the dogs would use their hind legs to "kick" dirt over the mixture and the "kicking" action is what created the "ice-cream" texture. Some theorists believe that cats may also have played a role in this as-of-yet poorly-understood process.
Question: Yes, I've seen my dog do that "kicking" thing! But I don't have a cat; do cats do that too?
Answer: Experiments verified how the process could be re-produced in, what is known today as "ice-cream" factories, and thus we have Chocolate ice-cream. Here, try some...
Answer: MMMmmmm. Yummy!!!Yeah. Elephant tusks. Right. And ones that ROT, even. The "Big Lie" wasn't really created by Hitler; rather by his drug addicted sidekick who knew that if you’re going to lie, you’re more likely to be believed if you tell a big one. But make sure you pepper it with lots of truth and observations that can't be refuted. That way people will feel stupid if they try to refute ANYTHING you say. And don't argue about the LIE; just stick to your guns on the irrelevant truths. That's evolution in a nutshell. If you say the same can be said for religion, then you're putting evolution and religion into the same class, so I suggest you avoid going there.And post 105 that points out the website www.ic.ac.uk is quite telling: What the heck is THAT? They "...BELIEVE...." that "...through hitherto unknown processes..."? Of course they have to "believe" these molecules existed because they STILL can't explain HOW these molecules came together; they just BELIEVE these molecules were there somehow. Sounds like alot of faith is involved here. I thought we were talking about science.And the article also points out: Which tells me only that INTELLIGENCE is required for these catalysts. I'm not saying it DOES. I'm saying that THAT'S ALL your reference can indicate. It's just a never-ending cycle of one thing being required for the next, then the next, then the next. But a random chance process just doesn't account for what has happened in our universe. Yes, for life to chemically evolve by itself, without intelligence, is ASBOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, impossible. That's why God made it the way he did; to make sure that NOBODY has ANY excuse whatsoever.And the "kinda like sodium chloride needs instructions to form a cube" argument is just as pathetic; so how DOES it form a cube? We'll wind up at the exact same spot again; it took INTELLIGENCE to make the universe function as we know it.This is sort of like a Calvin and Hobbes football game; they make up more rules as the game progresses. And for only ONE reason; to support their desire to BEAT the other guy, no matter the method. Again, we have ONLY two possible choices (as mentioned SOoooo many times on this forum):1. God created, or
2. Everything created itself.Oh, wait... I almost forgot that Calvin came up with ANOTHER rule (after he realized #2 above just can't float):3. Everything has always been here.The problem that Calvin was hoping Hobbes wouldn't notice, was that this "final solution" requires MORE faith than believing in God does. AND it's NOT SCIENCE. It's a HOPE or FAITH at best, fantasy fiction at worst (unless you're from hollywood). Sorry dudes, but the intelligent creator is real.

I seem to recall my organic chemistry professor talking about how the bridge structures of L-amino acids were slightly more stable during folding. Sorry to be vague but wasn't exactly sure but I'll look into my notes and see what he mentioned. I thought it had something to do with slightly less activation energy. Course its been a year so I could very well be talking out of my arse.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-09-2005 14:41 AM

No offense, but I'm not convinced your "ridiculous-sense" can make accurate predictions about what is true in the universe. Particularly since it fails to detect the enormous level of ridiculous-ness demonstrated in most of your posts.In fact it's much more likely that what you or I consider "ridiculous" is a function of cultural upbringing, not a function of what is true in the universe. I'd suggest another tack of argument because, quite frankly, nobody here gives a shit about what you might find ridiculous. I mean, I find it patently ridiculous that grown-up adults come here and relate fairy tales developed by first-century goatherds as though they were actually true; unlike you I don't expect anyone to give a damn that I find it ridiculous. Just like you I actually have to support my position with argument, not ridicule. Why? Simply because a human being was standing in the room?How come your ridiculous-sense, which you portray as so finely tuned, doesn't prick up at your own ridiculous arguments?

From the Forum Guidelines:

3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

'Nuff said, I hope?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thanks for stepping in, Percy. Do your rules also cover foul language? And what are the penalties for such useage? Especially the "F" word?
Thnx.

In discussion board parlance, this is called "moving the goalposts". Your first argument raised the homochirality problem. That was addressed. As far as chicken and egg issues, the Ghadiri article addressed this fairly succinctly, perhaps you missed it? However, since you insist on claiming we're dodging the issue, how about:Johnston WK, Unrau PJ, Lawrence MS, Glasner ME, Bartel DP, 2001, "RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension", Science 292:1319-25

quote:

---

The RNA world hypothesis regarding the early evolution of life relies on the premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication. In support of this conjecture, we describe here an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of polymerization needed for RNA replication. The ribozyme uses nucleoside triphosphates and the coding information of an RNA template to extend an RNA primer by the successive addition of up to 14 nucleotides-more than a complete turn of an RNA helix. Its polymerization activity is general in terms of the sequence and the length of the primer and template RNAs, provided that the 3' terminus of the primer pairs with the template. Its polymerization is also quite accurate: when primers extended by 11 nucleotides were cloned and sequenced, 1088 of 1100 sequenced nucleotides matched the template.

---

Okay, so RNA can polymerize RNA using only base nucleosides and a primer. Still not satisfied? How about we build the RNA in the lab? Zhang B, Cech TR, 1997 "Peptide bond formation by in vitro selected ribozymes", Nature 390:96-100

quote:

---

An attractive solution to the problem of the origin of protein synthesis in an evolving 'RNA world' involves catalysis by nucleic acid without assistance from proteins. Indeed, even the modern ribosome has been considered to be fundamentally an RNA machine, and the large ribosomal subunit can carry out peptidyl transfer in the absence of most of its protein subunits. Successive cycles of in vitro selection and amplification have been used to find RNAs that perform many biochemical reactions, including transfer of an RNA-linked amino acid to their own 5'-amino-modified terminus. Here we demonstrate the in vitro selection of ribozymes (196 nucleotides) that perform the same peptidyl transferase reaction as the ribosome: that is, they can join amino acids by a peptide bond. Like ribosome substrates, one amino acid (N-blocked methionine) is esterified to the 3'(2')-O of adenosine, whereas the acceptor amino acid (phenylalanine) has a free amino group. Our best characterized ribozyme recognizes the amino-acid ester substrate by binding its adenosine moiety, and is therefore capable of utilizing Leu- and Phe- as well as Met-derived substrates. Such lack of specificity with respect to the amino acid is a feature necessary for a generalized protein-synthesizing enzyme.

---

Still too complicated? How about the formation of a ribozyme ligase using only two nucleotides? Reader JS, Joyce GF, 2002, "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides", Nature 420:841-4

quote:

---

RNA molecules are thought to have been prominent in the early history of life on Earth because of their ability both to encode genetic information and to exhibit catalytic function. The modern genetic alphabet relies on two sets of complementary base pairs to store genetic information. However, owing to the chemical instability of cytosine, which readily deaminates to uracil, a primitive genetic system composed of the bases A, U, G and C may have been difficult to establish. It has been suggested that the first genetic material instead contained only a single base-pairing unit. Here we show that binary informational macromolecules, containing only two different nucleotide subunits, can act as catalysts. In vitro evolution was used to obtain ligase ribozymes composed of only 2,6-diaminopurine and uracil nucleotides, which catalyse the template-directed joining of two RNA molecules, one bearing a 5'-triphosphate and the other a 3'-hydroxyl. The active conformation of the fastest isolated ribozyme had a catalytic rate that was about 36,000-fold faster than the uncatalysed rate of reaction. This ribozyme is specific for the formation of biologically relevant 3',5'-phosphodiester linkages.

---

Keep 'em coming. I've got a million of them. Ummm, what IS the problem of "folding" and "oxidation" you mention? Replication I already covered.

How many million times do you need to have it explained to you, that randomness is just part of the story? I guess the words "natural selection" are only ever mentioned after you wedge your fingers tightly into your ears upon hearing the word 'random'. Usually, if you have identified a way in which it is "ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, impossible" for something to have happened, it's probably the way in which it did happen. Or, to use a priceless Sean Connery quip: "It's impossible, but doable." No. It just takes intelligence to understand it.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09 February 2005 21:43 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I think you may be confusing two different topics of discussion. On the one hand there's the discussion about whether ideas about how life might have begun constitute evidence for evolution. About this we probably all agree: it does not.On the other hand there's the discussion about how life might have arisen naturally given what we already know about life. About this we probably disagree.Speculations about how life might have began do not constitute evidence for evolution. Rather, we accept that evolution has occurred on the basis of real-world evidence, and scientists who work in the area of abiogenesis are attempting to unravel the secrets to the origin of life. There are lots of ideas, but little concrete has been settled at this point.By the way, scientists are not postulating anything circular such as that amino acids came from RNA and RNA came from amino acids. The issue they're studying is which came first. It is understood that if some kind of primitive RNA came first that it would have had to have been composed of amino acids that can arise naturally without RNA. Speculative ideas are expressed in just the way you're complaining about. When scientists aren't certain they'll use phrases like "they believe" or "they think" or "it may be that" and so forth.Your arguments about intelligence being a prerequisite for life are off-topic for this thread, and should probably be raised in a thread in [forum=-10].--Percy