Evolution has been Disproven

Welcome to EvC Regless.I'm a very near neighbor of yours. Drop into Bean Bros. in Kerrisdale and I'll buy you a coffee.(You'll recognize me easily -- I'm the guy that all the cute, young barista's like to tease )I would have to say though that your post here is not exactly on on topic. Sometimes when a newbie wants to express their views the post a greeting in the coffee house. That would have been a good place for this post.In any case, glad to have you here. Head over to the ID threads. The supporters of ID need all the help they can get.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

(sorry, more off topic stuff)Thanks for the warm welcome, although pardon me if I don't introduce myself. Ist seems a little meaningless since I doubt I'll be here long. Very rarely do I stay at any board for more than a few days and I don't really want to support IC since I don't have the education for it. It's just the lack of respect by some people that get's me. A good example is, the last time I tried to defend IC, after about three posts I realized I was arguing with a geneticist... That wasn't a debate, that was an execution. And of course, I look like a glaring idiot.

Personally, I've found that looking like a glaring idiot (repeatedly) is a good path to learning things.The only time you are really an idiot is when you refuse to learn. This is especially true if you are lucky enough to have someone who actually knows there stuff and can take time to help you.Oh, was it IC or ID that was the topic of discussion. We have, of course, a number of both.I might comment that it seems unfortunate to make up your mind on something when you don't actually know much about it.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-27-2005 06:42 PM

If you see a creation there must be a creator

Who created God then?Let me give you this example. If you see a leaf on the ground underneath a tree in fall, you could come to the reasonable conclusion that the leaf fell from the tree. But why did it fall on that particullar piece of ground? Why didn't it settle a few inches to the left? Why didn't it get blown many miles away?You could argue that it's there because God put it there. However you could also say "It fell from the tree, and a combination of wind, gravity etc caused it to lie where it is".My point is this: things do not need to have a cause, and I believe this can be extended to human existence.

welcome to the fray, Whirlwind.there is an easier way to do quote boxes here:type [qs]it's easy[/qs] and it becomes: enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Regless, So what did you learn about IC as an argument for design?Mark

It’s too bad that this topic has become an argument of definitions. What is needed is a clear definition of several terms used throughout the debate to keep everyone on the same terms. Why do we need to argue about the difference between “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”? While they are similar, they have subtle differences in the history of their use. “Abiogenesis” is derived from New Latin: a - (not) -bio- (life) -genesis- (origins). Therefore, abiogenesis could refer to any theory that produces life without having another living entity involved with its generation. Today, most scientists use “abiogenesis” when referring to the production of extremely basic life produced in the primordial soup of the early earth. In my posts, I will use “abiogenesis” only when referring to this phenomenon.I use the term “spontaneous generation” when referring to the specific theory of life arising from non-life occurring commonplace in our modern world (e.g. mice are spawned from hay, maggots from meat, and microorganisms from air). This archaic belief began to be refuted in 1668 when Francesco Redi demonstrated that no maggots formed on meat when a wire screen prevented flies from laying their eggs on the meat. In 1683, bacteria were discovered and a new version of spontaneous generation became popular. Bacteria seemed to spontaneously appear in organic matter even when the container was covered with a screen or sealed with a stopper. Then, Louis Pasteur discovered sterilization methods and the presence of bacteria in air. Soon the theory of spontaneous generation was no longer accepted.There are my definitions of “spontaneous generation” and “abiogenesis”. It would streamline the discussion if these terms are used as such. One should not disprove spontaneous generation and claim to be disproving abiogenesis. Nor should proof of abiogenesis be used to ratify spontaneous generation.On another note, Juhrahnimo wrote:
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.No, the production of proteins isn't that unfeasible. Here is a relatively long, quite exhausting, but extremely thorough paper explaining the probability of the production of a simple cell containing 12 proteins, each of which consist of 14 amino acids. I would suggest reading the summary to get the gist of the paper, then referencing the middle sections to find calculations and evidence. I find this paper well-substantiated, as the author aims to be as quantitative as possible while he attempts to answer the questions posed by the origin of life.http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdfThis message has been edited by Gordon, 11-07-2005 08:52 PM

Welcome to the fray Gordon.The problem with most {creationist\IDist} "probability" calculations is that they fail to find the bound of what is possible first, and without knowing what is possible you cannot determine which result has what probability within that set. I'm not sure that your paper cited does what you imply it does.While this paper seems to address the probability issue to some extent, I find that it still misses the mark. I see no real attempt to determine the actual possibilities involved.And it ends up concluding that help was needed, making the (weak) anthropic principle argument, and it thus appears to support ID more than natural causes (via the "we ran out of reasons" argument).{abe} One clue to this is the repeated reference to "fine tuning" in the paper, another is that it comes from http://www.iscid.org/ {/abe}I would also be interested in seeing more on the actual calculation methodology for the probabilities in the paper, as I get the impression that they make the same calculation error that the {creationists\IDists} do {abe} - especially given the source of the paper {/abe}.See
http://EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem
and
http://EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problemFor a discussion of the common errors in such calculations, and you may see why I come to this conclusion.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*07*2005 09:53 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yep, that was my thought yesterday when I read it.I didn't study the combinatorics in any detail, but they seemed to be quite thorough.However, they do seem to be rather deluded... there is no need at all for their probability to be of order unity. And personally, I really do not see abiogensis occuring as this simultaneous ordered coming-togther of countless amino acids, so this kind of probability argument is totally useless IMO.They can't even get their references correct. I find it quite hard to believe that Barrow and Tipler came out in 1994 when my prize winning essay based on their book was written in 1989 This message has been edited by cavediver, 11-08-2005 06:28 AM

Correct, in fact a probability of 1 is no longer a probability but a certainty. So this is setting up a rather impossible end goal as well as making the usual false argument. Leaves the conclusion almost a begging the question issue.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

because if we dont then their chance of learning something is dramatically less.

Your jigsaw puzzle analogy should work like this.Put all the bits in a bag and shake them up.Close your eyes and draw two bits randomly from the bag. See if they fit.If they do, place them to one side. If not, put them back in the bag and draw two new bits from the bag.Keep doing this until there are no more bits in the bag.Through a random process combined with selection you have moved a significant step towards assembling the whole.Now repeat the process with the groups of two pieces. Choosing two pairs at random and seeing if they fit. If they do put them to one side and if not put them back and chose two more.You now have clumps of 4 .Run the process on the clumps of 4 until you have clumps of 8. then 16, 32,64,128,256,512 and finally 1000 you assembled picture or proto-protein if you prefer.Now imagine you have 1000 copies of the jigsaw in the bag and 1000 people choosing. I think most people would be surprised as to how quickly the first completed image would emerge.(RAZD: what are the probabilities on this?)then add a thousand new jigsaws each with a thousand copies and a thousand new choosers. It might take a bit longer to get going but it's near as damn it garaunteed that you will end up with all the jigsaws fully assembled

I'm not touching that one .... Interesting analogy though. It still does not address having multiple sized clumps coming into contact.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*08*2005 07:29 PM

I was trying to keep it in manageable layers. But yes the whole process should involve 4clumps and 16 clumps randomly coming together.ABE--- And makes it blindingly obvious that with enough time it is almost inevitable that you can assemble a complex item (many, many pieces that must be in a certain order to work) through random combinations + selection.Also if you limited the grab-bag of components to 1000 copies of a picture(L) and 1000 copies of the same but mirrored picture (R ). Then this will also demonstrate that assembling left handed and right handed structures is not a problem as the Bits of Picture (L ) simply don’t fit with bits from Picture (R )This message has been edited by ohnhai, 09-11-2005 11:11 AM

First of all, I now agree with you regarding the validity of attempts to determine probablities regarding the origin of life. It is impossible to reliably calculate probabilities regarding early earth - we simply have much too little knowledge about these prebiotic conditions.("R" represents any one of 20 groups that determine the identity of the amino acid)
When amino acid #1: NH2-CHR-COOH combines with
amino acid #2: NH2-CHR'-COOH, you get
dipeptide: NH2-CHR-CO-NH-CHR'-COOH
as well as H2OThis is great, you are one step closer to a protein.
The equilibrium concentration is: 0.007 at 298 K. (See source for calculation)
If you add another amino acid to produce a tripeptide (two bonds) the equilibrium concentration becomes 0.007^2 or 4.9 x 10^-5. For a randomly assembled polypeptide with 31 amino acids (30 bonds), the equilibrium concentration is 2.3 x 10^-65. With 100 bonds, the concentration becomes 3.2 x 10^-216.
The problem with such a low equilibrium concentration, is that it will break up in water. When more bonds are formed, more water is formed and the equilibrium drops further.This can be compared to the jigsaw puzzle analogy like so:
We have the person randomly putting pieces together. Every time a match is found, another person enters the room. This guy wants to break apart this puzzle. Once he gets a puzzle, he dismantles it and leaves. The larger the portion of a completed puzzle, the more people trying to break apart the puzzle. If you hired more puzzle-builders, you only get more puzzle destroyers.Source: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis