PROOF against evolution

quote:

---

You didn't address my point that yours is an Argument from Personal Incredulity, and you didn't address my point that it is the height of arrogance for you you put your ignorant opinion in the same category of value as that of thousands and thousands of scientists and experts who have studied and works for years and years in the field.

---

It serves nobody for us to get into this personal stuff. It appears I've said more than anyone cares to hear in this thread already and for me to proceed further in this thread would be futile. It has been educational to me though and hopefully to others who may be reading who may also be less educated than you all. I read Richard Dawkins' "The Information Challenge" on his Australian Skeptics Inc. web page which elaborates on the Shannon concept of information that Percy posted about.In summary, I like many others don't accept that what is observed could happen that way to the degree of complexity which has come to be. Part of my argument was that it should be occuring elsewhere in the observable universe.I do appreciate the time and effort you all have given to explain the position mainline science teaches and believes. With that and the web links cited I am now less ignorant genetically speaking than when I entered this thread. Much obliged to all.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-18-2003]

That's a pretty large place, and we have collected samples from exactly one waterless body out there. When and if we do find life of some sort off of the Earth, what happens? Did some different Creator have to invent it there?

Hi, Buzz!Your Message 121 sounded like an exit statement, but I'm going to reply to this anyway. That's all you're going to say, that you meant 2LTD instead of 1LTD? How does 2LTD make any more sense than 1LTD? 2LTD says that the entropy of a system can never decrease. 2LTD has as little to do with information as 1LTD. I don't think you paused for even a second to consider the analogy. Here's the progression with salt, millennium by millennium:

start:          initial condition, no salt
1st millennium:  X grams of salt per liter of ocean
2nd millennium: 2X grams of salt per liter of ocean
3rd millennium: 3X grams of salt per liter of ocean
4th millennium: 4X grams of salt per liter of ocean
5th millennium: 5X grams of salt per liter of ocean
etc...

Since there are usually multiple copying errors in every reproductive event, mutations accumulate in the genome just like salt accumulates in the ocean. Here's the progession with a genome, millennium by millennium:

start:          initial condition, no mutations
1st millennium:  X mutations
2nd millennium: 2X mutations
3rd millennium: 3X mutations
4th millennium: 4X mutations
5th millennium: 5X mutations
etc...

In other words, Buzz, the accumulation of increasing amounts of variation in the form of mutations is a natural and inevitable process. If you're going to claim it doesn't happen then you have to name what would prevent it. Observing what, Buzz? The evolution of organisms on another planet? For the sake of argument, let's say there's other life out there in the universe. Let's even say it's on a planet orbiting the closest star. How would we observe it?And how about answering an earlier question that you ignored. If we happen to discover life on Mars or Europa, what would it mean to this claim of yours? Of course it does things repetitively, but you're looking at it the wrong way. Waves and tornadoes and hurricanes do the same basic things over and over again, and so do mutations. The changes caused by all these things accumulate. For the most part, each wave is a lot like every other wave, and every single base-pair substitution mutation is pretty much just every other. But just as each wave beats down the shore a little more, each mutation causes a greater difference from the original form. Each random mutation changes a random base-pair in a random way, and these changes accumulate over time just like salt in the ocean.Let's say you have a genome with a million base-pairs, and that the mutation rate per reproductive event is 5x10^-6, and let's only consider single base-pair substitutions. That gives us, on average, 5 mutations in each offspring. Since the offspring pass the mutations on to their progeny, the mutations accumulate over time. Since the mutations are random, they'll occur in random places over the million base pairs.Now, Buzz, in light of this, please try to make your point again.May I say that after you're brief flight to the Free For All forum and after you stated that perhaps because of limited time you had insufficiently studied the issues, you have picked up precisely where you left off: rapid and extremely poorly thought out and unresearched responses. I regret that you are becoming the object of personalizations that run counter to the Forum Guidelines, but I find it difficult to fault the frustration caused by your approach which not only violates the guidelines, but just as significantly also requires people to make the same points over and over and over again. And usually in increasing detail that has as little chance you'll comprehend it as the prior attempts.My original suggestion from long ago stands. Do some background reading. Don't give a knee-jerk answer with the first thing that pops into your head. Instead, research your answers, like you did with "genetic material". And don't give up. I've watched some pretty impressive improvements in knowledge and understanding of science at this very website.--Percy

quote:

---

That's a pretty large place, and we have collected samples from exactly one waterless body out there. When and if we do find life of some sort off of the Earth, what happens? Did some different Creator have to invent it there?

---

I'm almost afraid to respond to these kinds of questions here. There's so much animosity expressed at my answers that I really don't know how to respond without offending someone by answering according to what I believe. If you really want to know what I believe, and the forum can tolerate some diversity here, I believe as the Bible teaches that there is other life out there, much of it on a different dimension than ours. There's a real place called Heaven. There's angels and so forth out there some place. By the "observable" part of the universe, I was thinking more in terms of our own Solar System where it is quite likely nothing is happening so far as evolution goes and the workings of so called information theory.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-18-2003][This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-18-2003]

And I agree, Buz, that it's very probable that there is no other life, and never has been, in our solar system. Earth is the only spot with lots of liquid water and lots of incoming energy. But that's a mighty small place - the family of one star of a trillion in our galaxy, with a few trillion galaxies like it out there. And planets orbiting other stars are being found every month now, with the technology to find them still in its infancy. No need for other dimensions - there are likely billions of places among those septillions of stars where conditions were/are conducive to the start of life. We humans just aren't too likely to find it - the universe is large. And big. And thinly spread.

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

I was thinking more in terms of our own Solar System where it is quite likely nothing is happening so far as evolution goes

---

(*blink!*)Did you really just say that?Here's some evolution you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab for very little cost (it's a common experiment in high school and college biology classes):Take a single K-type E. coli bacterium. Let it reproduce in solution and then infect the solution with T4 phage. Pour the solution into a petri dish to form a lawn.Knowing that T4 phage infects and kills K-type E. coli bacteria, what do you think will happen? That's right, plaques should form in the petri dish where the bacteria are dying, eventually killing off the entire lawn.But what do we actually see? Plaques do form, but the lawn refuses to die off. In the middle of the plaques, you will find a colony or two still alive.How can this be? All the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor which is vulnerable to T4 phage. There is only one answer: The bacteria evolved. They are called K/4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But wait, there's more. Take a single bacterium from one of these surviving colonies, that is a K/4 bacterium, and again, let it reproduce in solution and then infect the solution with T4 phage and pour it into a petri dish to form a lawn.What do you think will happen? That's right, nothing. The bacteria are immune to T4 phage and thus we should see no change.But what do we actually see? Plaques form.But how can this be? All the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. There is only one answer: The phage evolved.Yes, that's right...the phage evolved. A little thought shows why this must be the case. If a bacterium had reverted to K-type, it would die from being infected with T4 phage, but it would immediately be replaced by the neighboring K4 bacteria reproducing. The phage could never get the upper hand and we would never see any plaques.Therefore, since we do see plaques, it must be that the phage that has mutated to get past the K4 bacteria's defenses. This new phage is called T4h.So there you go...evolution right before your eyes. Not just once but twice.How can you say that there is nothing happening as far as evolution goes? It is going on all around us. You, yourself, are a mutant. We all are. The average human has 3-6 mutations compared to his parents.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, if you'd been following my statements, the solar system statement was to clarify my statement in 121 to the effect that if evo was going on here on earth, it should be happening elsewhere in the universe. I meant elsewhere besides earth and specifically our Solar System as that's the more observable area. I admit, I should've
not used the word "universe" in 121, for as Percy correctly states, it would be impossible to observe beyond our Solar System. Some would argue that the earth is the only place because earth has water, the right amount of heat and light, the right amount of barometric pressure and all, to which I might counter, "how did all these factors just happen to be in place on one planet in exact proportions so as to effect so called informational theory and alleged life producing RM/NS?" No need to respond to that as it's a new topic. I'm trying to wind up this thread but also to respond to matters brought up.I haven't forgot your post, Percy. When I get some time, I'll try to address some specific items in your post. Thanks.

I hate to reply after you've said not to, but I do have to ask: When somebody wins the lottery do you ask "How did the lottery ticket they bought just happen to be printed with the same numbers as the randomly generated numbers we all saw on tv so that they could allegedly win the million dollars?"I mean, if you put it that way, it seems pretty suspicious that anyone could win the lottery at all. The odds are so low. But I assume you grant the existence of random chance - because I don't hear you going around calling lottery winners cheaters - so I don't see why you don't apply it to the conditions that allowed life on Earth.That there doesn't seem to be all that much life in the universe is pretty good indication that the factors that allow for life are a matter of chance.

quote:

---

That's all you're going to say, that you meant 2LTD instead of 1LTD? How does 2LTD make any more sense than 1LTD? 2LTD says that the entropy of a system can never decrease. 2LTD has as little to do with information as 1LTD.

---

I guess the old meaning of 2td and the new are different, the old having a more negative effect, including the information factor. I guess the question is whether the change was to accommodate or to enlighten.

quote:

---

start: initial condition, no salt1st millennium: X grams of salt per liter of ocean2nd millennium: 2X grams of salt per liter of ocean3rd millennium: 3X grams of salt per liter of ocean4th millennium: 4X grams of salt per liter of ocean5th millennium: 5X grams of salt per liter of oceanetc...
Since there are usually multiple copying errors in every reproductive event, mutations accumulate in the genome just like salt accumulates in the ocean. Here's the progession with a genome, millennium by millennium:

---

You still have repetitive salt, in spite of the errors. I would think logically that would still be more likely than random mutations which must each involve something different as well as productively positive so as to introduce information for natural selection. Does that make sense?

quote:

---

Observing what, Buzz? The evolution of organisms on another planet? For the sake of argument, let's say there's other life out there in the universe. Let's even say it's on a planet orbiting the closest star. How would we observe it?

---

True. I should've narrowed that down to the other planets and satelites of the solar system.

quote:

---

And how about answering an earlier question that you ignored. If we happen to discover life on Mars or Europa, what would it mean to this claim of yours?

---

It would mean to me the the same god saw fit to created life on both. I would then have one less of the other ss bodies to argue with you about.

quote:

---

Of course it does things repetitively, but you're looking at it the wrong way. Waves and tornadoes and hurricanes do the same basic things over and over again, and so do mutations. The changes caused by all these things accumulate. For the most part, each wave is a lot like every other wave, and every single base-pair substitution mutation is pretty much just every other. But just as each wave beats down the shore a little more, each mutation causes a greater difference from the original form. Each random mutation changes a random base-pair in a random way, and these changes accumulate over time just like salt in the ocean.

---

But about all the waves are going to ever accomplish is erosion and the tornadoes chaotic destruction. RM must do much more wonderful things like creat information and eventually life producing quality and quantity of NS.

quote:

---

May I say that after you're brief flight to the Free For All forum and after you stated that perhaps because of limited time you had insufficiently studied the issues, you have picked up precisely where you left off: rapid and extremely poorly thought out and unresearched responses.

---

I got the implication that by your suggestion it might be useful for me to come back and respond to some unfinished business. Sorry I disappointed you. I did the best I could with the time I had to put into it. That's why I'm ready to exit this thread. Thanks for your time and effort anyhow. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-19-2003]

2LTD has never changed to have "a more negative effect", there are only different ways of stating it. I chose the shortest. 2LTD has nothing whatsoever to say about information. Why do you think it does? No, it does not make sense. Please perform this exercise. Copy the following lines of information 1,000 times. Each time you make a copy, be sure to copy only from the previous copy: Each time you make a new copy you are doing the exact same thing you did before, not "something different" as you claim above. And each time you make a copying error you create new information. DNA copying during reproduction is fairly analogous to this. There's no "magic extra something" happening every time there's a copying error. It's just chemistry. Except that I already addressed this in an earlier email, saying that the earth is in a beneficial location, neither too far nor too close to the sun. At heart, life is just very complicated chemistry, and so conditions must be warm enough to permit chemical activity, but not so warm that chemical bonds can't form. You need to first examine other planets in beneficial locations like earth's, and only after finding no life on a statistically significant number of planets can your statement that we don't observe evolution elsewhere carry any weight. I acknowledge the smiley, but you're using it to avoid addressing the issue. Your original argument makes no sense. You're arguing that evolution violates 2LTD, and that the lack of life on other planets in the solar system is evidence that evolution isn't happening on earth because it isn't happening on other planets. Since biological evolution only occurs in the presence of life, how does it make any sense to even bring this up?Life is just complicated chemistry. If you look inside a cell there isn't anything supernatural going on, just chemistry. And everytime there's a copying error with DNA thereby adding information (which happens all the time, including in your own body), it's just chemistry. Why didn't you put the time you had yesterday and the time you had today and the time you had tomorrow into researching the issues so that the next day you could compose an intelligent response? If we hear from you again on this thread, I hope it's not before Wednesday.--Percy

quote:

---

Life is just complicated chemistry. If you look inside a cell there isn't anything supernatural going on, just chemistry.

---

Creationists believe that the complex chemistry and all that's going on in the universe was originated and put in place by the supernatural. That does not mean we believe the chemistry itself which is going on is going on supernaturally as you are implying. That's all for me in this thread. I didn't start it. I should think there are other creationists out there who are more educated than I would have something to say in a thread like this. Maybe it's that they don't care to deal with the insults and arrogant attitude of some with whom they must contend with to do so.

Hi, Buzz!Ya know, it's not Wednesday yet. Had you waited a few days and let your reply at least simmer in your mind a bit you might have produced something that made sense. You started this conversation about information with arguments about RM/NS, so clearly we're talking about evolution, not the origin of life. You've never come straight out and said it, probably because you don't understand what Gitt (not Pearcey) is actually saying, but the way Gitt claims it works is that there is a law of entropy for information, and that random processes cannot create new information. This is obviously false since it has already been described for you how random processes can do just that, and without any supernatural intervention. And the fact that Pearcey, who *is* another Creationist after all, does not agree with Gitt at all on this matter should at least raise questions within your mind. And these questions might have occurred to you had you studied and contemplated a bit more. But no, you had to reply today. It isn't your lack of education that is hurting you, because all the information you need is out there on the web. It is your reluctance to seek out this information and incorporate it into your understanding that is hurting you. The insults are regrettable, and you have shown yourself to be a far better gentleman than many here, myself included. But as for arrogance, no one here can hold a candle to you. The confidence, not arrogance, with which other people have expressed their understanding stems from evidence gathered over decades and in some cases centuries, and this evidence deserves the consideration it did not receive from you. Many people have spent much time explaining things to you, only to have it ignored or dismissed, usually on the basis of personal incredulity. This produces a certain amount of very understandable frustration as extremely few points ever seem to get across. It isn't that the people you're discussing with are right. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. It's that your responses rarely indicate any understanding of what was explained, yet you dismiss the argument anyway. Further explanations are usually met with a determined ignorance, and you have occasionally commented that you don't have the time or background for this, but you believe you're right anyway. Most people at least have the good sense to avoid expressing and defending strong opinions of things they know little about. That you refuse to be guided by this is the height of arrogance.--Percy

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, if you'd been following my statements, the solar system statement was to clarify my statement in 121 to the effect that if evo was going on here on earth, it should be happening elsewhere in the universe.

---

I have been following your statements, but you still haven't shown any evidence for this statement. Why should evolution be happening elsewhere in the universe?And just as importantly, if it were happening elsehwere in the universe, how could you tell? The universe is huge. The nearest solar system is at least 4 light years away. How on earth do you plan on investigating if there is life out there? Only recently have we been able to send anything that left the solar system and only even more recently did it leave the solar system. And none of them were being sent to a star system anywhere nearby and none had any instruments capable of detecting life and sending the message back (yes, I know about the gold records...that requires the life that finds it to decode the instructions on how to play the record and respond.)The universe just might be filled with life. We'd never know it. While my personal opinion is that we are not alone in the universe, I also state that we are isolated.

quote:

---

I meant elsewhere besides earth and specifically our Solar System as that's the more observable area.

---

Again, why? There aren't many places in the solar system with liquid water. From what we can tell using our sample of one, life needs liquid water. Venus is too hot. Mars is too dry. Mercury is too close to the sun. The other planets are gas giants and we can only speculate about the moons of those giants.What on earth makes you think that there should be life somewhere else in the solar system if evolution is true? It seems that you're dancing around the mistake of equating evolution with abiogenesis.

quote:

---

Some would argue that the earth is the only place because earth has water, the right amount of heat and light, the right amount of barometric pressure and all, to which I might counter, "how did all these factors just happen to be in place on one planet in exact proportions so as to effect so called informational theory and alleged life producing RM/NS?"

---

You're invoking the anthropomorphic principle. Where else would you expect to find life except in the spot where life could exist? You seem to be saying that if you drop your keys in the parking lot next to your car, there is a reasonable chance that you might find them in your desk drawer instead of by your car.I'm reminded of an old joke: Why is the sky blue? Because if it were green we would ask, "Why is the sky green?"We should not be surprised to find life on a planet that has conditions suitable to supporting life. What might make your argument more plausible is if we had a slew of examples of planets that were suitable to supporting life that were sterile. If there were a bunch of planets that were capable of supporting life and ours was the only one that had life, then we might wonder about what was so special about our planet. But since we only have a sample of one, we cannot make that claim.And let us not forget that life managed to change the environment. There's a reason plants took over the surface of the earth long before animals: There wasn't any oxygen. It took thousands of years of plants exhaling oxygen in order to make the atmosphere habitable for animals. Part of the reason the planet is capable of supporting life as we know it today is because the life that came before made it that way. It had nothing to do with intelligent design.

quote:

---

No need to respond to that as it's a new topic.

---

You mean you actually take the anthropic principle seriously?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Ok, for someone who it sounds like has a phd ( or acts like it ) doesn't know his stuff! I am in 9th grade and in biology. The reason DNA is repetitive is for a mirror ( like a ftp mirror ). It can compare it to the other to find 'errors'. As for being random, over half of the DNA does NOT code for anything! It sits there and does nothing. Sometimes the DNA is shuffled - causing some used DNA and some unused DNA change. GOD created it this way, I assume so that more 'mutations' are possible.Also, which seems more likely... a God, who hhas always been, is, and always will be...
Or... a chance so unlikly it is a mathematical impossiblity?

Darwin said that evolution happens in slow steps, like the one in the experiment you stated which involved cellular evolution. The evolution Creationists are against is evolution which says all life came from nothing and there is no God. If evololution happened why can't we find ANY proof? I.E: many stages of humans, or even humans today who are extremely monkey-like? Evolution on the large scale - DOES not happen.