Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9029 total)
67 online now:
jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,333 Year: 1,979/14,102 Month: 347/624 Week: 68/163 Day: 28/26 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF against evolution
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 562 (36927)
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


Note from Adminnemooseus (4/25/03) - Despite the title ("PROOF against evolution"), this is indeed an "Origins of Life" topic. It was moved to the "OOL" forum, from the "Evolution" forum, as of message 14.

Have you ever heard of the Miller experiment? It was at the University of Chicago where they attempted to create life in the laboratory, thus proving evolution. However, they cheated by excluding oxygen (By the law of diffusion, oxygen HAS ALWAYS been in the atmosphere, or it would not be today). They excluded oxygen because they knew that oxygen would oxidize (which creates rust and decay) the material and they would not form life successfully. So, after cheating to overcome the oxygen hurtle, they STILL failed, by creating only a maximum of 8 amino acids (not even half of what is required to make a single simple life form).
Also, have you ever studied the structure of a DNA molecule? Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine are the four base molecules needed to create a DNA strand, along with the end-molecules of deoxyribose. Each molecule boasts a number of atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Yes OXYGEN. so, the Miller experiment failed to create life because oxygen was not administered, and it would have failed because oxygen cannot simple be "added" to a chemicle and expected to create life. Also, there are 20 amino acids on a strand, and since 200 are needed for life, the chance of random mutation occuring in the precise order for evolution to occure would be, in the simplest aspect, 20 to the 200th power!!! So, those chances are roughly .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 !!!

Evolution is statistically impossible. Also, variations within a single kind of animal (kind means they can produce offspring together--cat and dog are not the same kind, but coyote and dog ARE because they are able to produce offspring) anyway, those variations within a single animal kind are not evolution. (If changing around the letters in the word "CHRISTMAS" cannot create "ZEBRA" then why can't the evolutionists figure out that random mutations are LIMITED to within a single animal kind). Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).

Besides, if evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, the did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills?

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-25-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-14-2003 5:12 AM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Gzus, posted 04-14-2003 5:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 5 by lpetrich, posted 04-14-2003 11:21 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Gzus, posted 04-15-2003 8:28 AM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 7 by lpetrich, posted 04-15-2003 3:44 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2003 4:02 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2003 4:04 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 562 (36929)
04-14-2003 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


quote:
However, they cheated by excluding oxygen (By the law of diffusion, oxygen HAS ALWAYS been in the atmosphere, or it would not be today). They excluded oxygen because they knew that oxygen would oxidize (which creates rust and decay) the material and they would not form life successfully.

I am curious about these statements, because weren't oxygen scarce in the early earth (it was, and is, too reactive)? Atmospheric oxygen concentration started rising when photosynthesis was invented, about 1 billion years ago ((?) correct me if i'm wrong).

You do know the diffrence between the oxygen gas (O2) and the oxygen atom (O), do you?

quote:
Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).

FYI, there are several human fossils that has been discovered, and put in context (time & morphological change) each made a part of a good, if incomplete, sequence. They're in the right age and shape to serve as a model for desecent with modification.

Anyway, consider your statement: if the apeman was a separate creation from apes and humans, then what purpose does it serve to be created for? To trick us into postulating that humans evolve from primitive apes?

quote:
Also, if evolution is true, the did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills?

Are you aware of teh fact that some fish have lungs and able to breathe air?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by k.kslick, posted 01-14-2004 8:08 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded
 Message 170 by sonicxp, posted 02-11-2004 8:53 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 562 (36932)
04-14-2003 5:41 AM


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]


Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Charles Munroe, posted 06-02-2004 12:08 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 562 (36934)
04-14-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


quote:

So, those chances are roughly
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
!!!

[Edited to fix too-long line. Booboo, please use exponential notation. --Admin]

so you admit there's a chance? Just remember that the universe is a very large place, it's going to happen somewhere.

[This message has been edited by Gzus, 04-14-2003]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 04-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by some_guy, posted 04-19-2003 12:11 AM Gzus has not yet responded

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 562 (37030)
04-14-2003 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


About the oxygen content of the Earth's early atmosphere, there was an important transition at around 2.3 billion years ago, when the Earth's atmosphere became much more oxygenated.

Before that, the oxygen amount was at most 1% of the present amount, and possibly even less. There is evidence of this in uranium minerals and paleosols (fossilized soil), which are less oxidized before than after.

Some possible counterevidence is the Banded Iron Formations (BIF's), which are mostly on the "before" side. They contain Fe3+, which is insoluble, and most likely produced from soluble (and dissolved) Fe2+ by photosynthesizing microbes.

However, those microbes need not have released oxygen; they could have directly oxidized Fe2+ to Fe3+ to extract electrons for photosynthesis (oxygenic photosynthesis involves extracting electrons from water, leaving hydrogen ions and oxygen). Some present-day photosynthetic bacteria use sources of electrons other than water, so iron-oxidizing photosynthesis is completely feasible.

Furthermore, it's been seriously speculated that the early Earth atmosphere had about 10^-3 of methane (around 1000 times the present-day abundance). That, along with the early Earth's carbon dioxide, would produce enough of a greenhouse effect to keep the Earth from freezing as a result of the Sun being dimmer than it is today.

This methane would be produced by methanogens which live off of atmospheric carbon dioxide and hydrogen released from hot springs and the like.

However, for it to be stable, the oxygen content has to be at most 10^-7.

Here's a nice little abstract on that subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by sonicxp, posted 02-15-2004 4:16 AM lpetrich has not yet responded

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 562 (37068)
04-15-2003 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


Why don't we talk later when you finish highschool?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 562 (37094)
04-15-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


booboocruise seems like he/she needs to do a LOT of learning about biochemistry.

Yes, many biomolecules contain oxygen, but it is seldom obtained directly from oxygen gas, O2. The more usual sources of oxygen are water, carbon dioxide, and phosphate ions. Prebiotic-synthesis experiments routinely produce oxygen-containing organic molecules, even though such experiments contain no oxygen gas. In fact, such experiments would be "poisoned" by oxygen gas.

Also, booboocruise takes some concept of "created kinds" for granted; he ought to realize that it's not self-evident.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

some_guy
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 562 (37306)
04-19-2003 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Gzus
04-14-2003 5:47 AM


I really dont like these arguments about chances. And stating that if there is any chance at all, well we were just luckey enough.

"so you admit there's a chance? Just remember that the universe is a very large place, it's going to happen somewhere."

If this is true then why not believe that the whole earth just appeared the way it is now by random chance. Fossils and all in the earth, and animals exacly the way they are now. Is there not the smallest of chance that that could happen?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Gzus, posted 04-14-2003 5:47 AM Gzus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2003 1:04 AM some_guy has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8956
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 562 (37307)
04-19-2003 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by some_guy
04-19-2003 12:11 AM


Chances
quote:
I really dont like these arguments about chances.

Neither do I. I think Gzus was being humorous here.

The "probability" argument has been brought up so many times. Every time I've seen it it's been done with faulty assumptions. In fact, very silly ones. I guess Gzus just didn't feel like going into it yet again.

The origin of life question can not have probabilities assigned until we have a better idea of what the first replicators might have been like. No one suggests that it was a DNA molecule (since, for one thing, they can't self catalyze). Assigning a number is a stupid exercise in futiliy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by some_guy, posted 04-19-2003 12:11 AM some_guy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 04-23-2003 7:57 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 316 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 10 of 562 (37665)
04-23-2003 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
04-19-2003 1:04 AM


Re: Chances
Although I think the point Gzus was alluding to is that
anything with a finite probability can happen.

If there is a 1 in a million chance if something that
doesn't mean it can't happen first time or even every
time ... there is a difference between empirical probability
and statistical probability anyhow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2003 1:04 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8956
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 562 (37709)
04-23-2003 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


Letters
quote:
cat and dog are not the same kind, but coyote and dog ARE because they are able to produce offspring) anyway, those variations within a single animal kind are not evolution. (If changing around the letters in the word "CHRISTMAS" cannot create "ZEBRA" then why can't the evolutionists figure out that random mutations are LIMITED to within a single animal kind).

This is amazing! I just noticed this is the first suggestion I've seen about what the mysterious barrier between "kinds" is. However, BBC you have it wrong.

What "letters" are you talking about? The only letters that could possibly apply are the 4 "letters" which make up the 3 letter words of the genetic code. Since cats, dogs, humans, whales and walruses all have the same 4 letters the changes needed are only those needed to changed dogs to gods or cats to stats. Why is this impossible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8956
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 562 (37710)
04-23-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:47 AM


Proof?
BBC, You made quite a list of individual things in your original post (#1). Are there any specific ones which you think are left to be answered?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:47 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

Flamingo Chavez
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 562 (38073)
04-25-2003 6:06 PM


Evolution makes no claims on the origin of life.

------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein


AdminTC
Inactive Junior Member


Message 14 of 562 (38101)
04-26-2003 12:05 AM


Thread Relocation
Flamingo is correct, thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

--AdminTC

[This message has been edited by AdminTC, 04-25-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Ytlaya, posted 07-04-2003 10:17 PM AdminTC has not yet responded

Ytlaya
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 562 (45110)
07-04-2003 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AdminTC
04-26-2003 12:05 AM


Re: Thread Relocation
I am new here, and am happy with the intelligence I see represented by many of the people here. Anyways, I would like to point out the fundamental flaw in that analogy about the low probability of a complex life form coming from nothing.

A popular creationist argument against evolution is the junkyard analogy. It's basically based on the same things the creator of this thread points out. I will now rephrase that analogy in a way that makes it more appropriate to the nature of evolution, and see what the thread creator thinks after that.

In the junkyard analogy the idea of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and creating a 747 is presented. To make this analogy more fitting, have the tornado sweep through the junkyard once a second for millions of years, and have the pieces that connect properly stay connected. You will find that you will most likely have your 747.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AdminTC, posted 04-26-2003 12:05 AM AdminTC has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2003 11:10 PM Ytlaya has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2003 11:16 PM Ytlaya has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021