|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution has been Disproven | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2564 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What do you mean by "law of probability is 10 to the 50th power"? It is a meaningless statement to me. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2564 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote: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: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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You hit it right on the head. And the REASON they distance themselves from abiogenesis is the "amino acid problem" that is absolutely insurmountable. There is just no way for enough left handed amino acids to come about by "chance" to make even ONE right handed protein. The probability of that happening by itself is 10 to the oh, 1200th or so power I believe (law of probability is 10 to the 50th power, don't forget). And even if that DID happen, we would have only ONE protein that COULDN'T survive on it's own because it would have NO instructions, much less a mechanism, to replicate itself. You want to see an evolutionist go beserk? Just mention the amino acid problem to them; but be sure to DUCK so you don't get hit by inadvertant sputum! 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: 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: 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 problems This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-09-2005 09:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Briefly, since this is off topic, I'll consider the three definitions of you found of Unitarian:
1. An adherent of Unitarian Universalism. 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.
2. A monotheist who is not a Christian. Until well into adulthood I mistakenly believed that Unitarians were Christians, so I don't think of myself in this way.
3. A Christian who is not a Trinitarian. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
And the REASON they distance themselves from abiogenesis is the "amino acid problem" that is absolutely insurmountable.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
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.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s true. Say it loud enough. Say it often enough. Keep saying it. And people will believe it.
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:
ic.ac.uk writes:
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. They believe that at the dawn of biological life there were even numbers of molecules in each form, but through hitherto unknown processes, one particular form came to completely dominate over the others... And the article also points out:
ic.ac.uk writes:
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. ...chemists regularly make catalysts ... 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, or2. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
Which tells me only that INTELLIGENCE is required for these catalysts. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
From the Forum Guidelines:
'Nuff said, I hope?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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. 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: 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: 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: Keep 'em coming. I've got a million of them.
And the problems of "folding", "oxidation" (or lack of oxygen (think: ozone) is even worse), replication, and others are only dodged at best. Ummm, what IS the problem of "folding" and "oxidation" you mention? Replication I already covered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Juhrahnimo writes: [...] a random chance process just doesn't account for what has happened in our universe. 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'.
Juhrahnimo writes: Yes, for life to chemically evolve by itself, without intelligence, is ASBOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, impossible. 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."
Juhrahnimo writes: it took INTELLIGENCE to make the universe function as we know it. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Juhrahnimo writes: 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. 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.
And post 105 that points out the website www.ic.ac.uk is quite telling:
ic.ac.uk writes:
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. They believe that at the dawn of biological life there were even numbers of molecules in each form, but through hitherto unknown processes, one particular form came to completely dominate over the others... 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024