If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?

"Why don't you tell us what the 2nd law of thermodynamics states. After we are done laughing we will tell you what it really says and tell you how wrong you are."heres the best part. I don't have to. You specifically asked me to show that scientists are not in agreement with any aspect of evolution.

quote:

---

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."

---

quote:

---

A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

---

Level of support for evolution - WikipediaIn 1991, 5% accept creation, and "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". In 2009, 87% agree with evolution.If intelligent informed, and educated minds are not accepting evolution, this can mean something. But lets not point at numbers. These polls show that scientists DO NOT entirely agree on evolution, and more than likely, specific points made by it.

Did you miss Huntard's example of Nylon eating bacteria?I'm still waiting for this mythical conflicting theories of evolution you have yet to support with any substance or, god forbid evidence.Apart from showing that some people don't believe in evolution (non scientist) and that some scientist are creationist (already established that ToE works fine in a created worlds) you have shown us nothing about the conflicting theories of evolution.You have only showed us that some people being in creation: they are not logically mutually exclusive (which was your point, I beleive). Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Ok, here's a post I made some time ago on this forum, about nylon bacteria. I suggest you read it.Our topic today concerns a bacteria, that through evolution, can now digest nylon.This is the original gene: This gene was copied. But no new information was created, since it was a copy. This also means that one copy can mutate freely.The next thing that happened wasn't just any mutation, but the most dramatic one we know. A frameshift mutation. This will affect every single amino acid from the point of the frameshift onwards. An example of how this works:Amino acids are formed by a combination of three nucleotides, for example:|G A A | C G C|
Glutamate|ArginineNow, when you insert a nucleotide (which is what this mutation does), it doesn't just change the amino acid it gets inserted to, but every single one after that as well, again for example we insert C into the first position:|C G A | A C G| C
Alanine|ThreonineSo much for the example.There are 427 amino acids in the original gene. Now, creationists like to claim that the ability to digest nylon was already there in the gene, but they're wrong.The frameshift occurred at the 33rd amino acid, altering over 92% of the gene's information. Seen here in red: This is NOT a loss of information, however, because this gene is a copy.The frameshift added a new sequence to the gene, seen here in green: But not only that, it also made a new start codon at the insertion point. This means that this is an entirely new gene!This is the entirely new gene: And now: How much information was created by this?There are 4 nucleotides total.So, when we take the equation from information theory:LOG₂(4) = 2 bits (the 4 here being the total number of possibilities)An amino acid is made by three nucleotides, so that is:3*2 bits = 6 bits for every amino acidsince this mutation generated a sequence of 392 amino acids, we get:392*6 bits = 2352 bits of completely new information.The source of all this can be found hereAnd the video I kinda transcribed here is found here-----Now on with the rest: Thus, it changed the environment, and was natural selection at work. Uhm, well, the dated layers do correspond to the "story". And yhis has what to do with evolution? Thos other scientists still think birds evolved. This is not a competing theory of evolution however, this is a competing theory in evolution. The mechanisms the birds evolved with are the same in both cases.So, no evidence as of yet. I wonder if we'll ever see any.

response to Nylonese first."1.There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.2.All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.3.All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genesthe chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.4.The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons.8 This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 1012. Furthermore, the EII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands.Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).5.The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.6.The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes."
The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste - creation.comI will come back tonight to respond to the rest. I'm at work, and having issues with the contactor. Sorry.

You, being a finite being, could not know that empirically. It satisfies, perhaps, some philosophical quandry for you, but at the end of the day it is nothing more than conjecture.There's nothing wrong with the answer, "I don't know," if you don't, in fact, know.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

All you are doing is the Gish Gallop.YOu make claims about 2nd law of Thermodynamics and then when pressed to explain the law you cannot. All you do is go wildly off topic it to make some claim about support for evolution falling. Obviously you know nothing about polls either. Have you looked at the raw data? Did you look what was actually asked?tThe scientific support for evolution is at 87% for all scientists and you make a claim that there is a lack of support for evolution. I think anyone, anywhere would love 87% support. No group of people entirely agree on anything. I did no such thing. You might want to try to keep your arguments and who you are arguing with straight.And yes you do need to show an understanding of the 2nd law if you are going to use it as a basis for your argument.Or would you rather just admit you are wrong and the creofundy sites you got this from are wrong.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Why should dennis780 pr anyone else feel embarrassed when you and other evolutionists use talkorigins as a source and you quote Heinlein like he was a demi-god??Evolutionists are always way to full of themselves and they are never doing science. Science is but a thin facade for the evolutionist.

If you actually read talkorigins you will see that they give references to their sources. Unlike the creofundy sites they do not make statements without a reference to a source.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Evolutionists are always way to full of themselves and they are never doing science. Science is but a thin facade for the evolutionist.

---

You clearly live in a fantasy world Ichiban. There are many thousands of papers on subjects connected with evolution.

I wonder why all you do on these forums is project what creationists do on people who care about the truth.You never add anything to the debate, you never say anything of value, and you seem to be coyote's personal board stalker.In short, gow up, grow a pair, and if you really think you're so right in all this, show it or shut up.But I think that like a smal chold, you'd rather just insult some people and project other's faults on to them. Typical.

Here is a fact for you, all they do over at talkorigins is setup their own straw men arguments to knock down has though they were serious arguments, and all that any creationist has, just like the evolutionists do here.It is all rather weak really, since most of the arguments are about philosophy, rather than science. The problems come about when dime-store philosophers claim to be a scientist.

Evidence or example please. Are you relying on those creo sites for your sources again. We have told you before that they lie.You might want to actually look at talkorigins before you pass on lies.Example one.

quote:

---

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87
Copyright 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

---

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentExample 2

quote:

---

Fossil Hominids
The Evidence for Human Evolution
Copyright 1996-2010 by Jim Foley

---

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolutionExample 3

quote:

---

Claim CB200.2:
The biochemistry of blood clotting is irreducibly complex, indicating that it must have been designed.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 74-97.
Response:

​

1. The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.

​

2. Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003).

​

3. Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution and doesn't imply design.

​

Links:
Acton, George, 1997. Behe and the blood clotting cascade. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html

​

Behe, M. and K. Miller. 2002. Transcript: American Museum of Natural History April 23, 2002 (Part 7). http://www.ncseweb.org/..._dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp

​

Dunkelberg, Pete, 2003. Irreducible complexity demystified. Irreducible Complexity Demystified

​

EvoWiki, 2004. Blood clotting. http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting

​

Musgrave, Ian, 2005. Clotted rot for rotten clots. Page not found · GitHub Pages
References:

​

1. Davidson, C. J., E. G. Tuddenham, and J. H. McVey. 2003. 450 million years of hemostasis. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 1: 1478-1497.
2. Robinson, A. J., M. Kropatkin, and P. M. Aggeler. 1969. Hagemann factor (factor XII) deficiency in marine mammals. Science 166: 1420-1422.

​

Further Reading:
Doolittle, Russell F., 1997. A delicate balance. Boston Review (Feb./Mar.), Home - Boston Review
Ussery, David, 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

---

CB200.2: Blood clotting and Irreducibly ComplexityAre you ready to admit you are passing on lies. It is amazing how readily fundies bear false witness.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"You, being a finite being, could not know that empirically."You are right. This is not a scientific fact. I don't think there is a creationist out there that could possibly prove the beginning (or non) of God. This is a belief.I DON'T KNOW. I just believe. Better?

"And yes you do need to show an understanding of the 2nd law if you are going to use it as a basis for your argument."I'll tell you what I think it is, then you tell me I'm wrong. Deal?The Law of Entropy refers to the amount of disorder, or order in a system. If states that, if left alone, the amount of disodered possibilities are many more than ordered ones. And since every substance tends to equilibrium (hot water added to tub will disperse, buildings will eventually crumble and spread dust, etc.), that the likely hood of order by natural process is extremely minute.Recently, evolutionists have started using the Law of Maximum Entropy Production. That ordered flow, including life, was permissible as long as it produced enough entropy to compensate for its own internal entropy reduction. But there is no evidence for this."No group of people entirely agree on anything."Hmm, I thought you were making this point. Well, for whoever said that there are not internal discussions there is the info..."Or would you rather just admit you are wrong and the creofundy sites you got this from are wrong."I could be wrong. But so could you. Thats why we are here right?

"Evolutionists are always way to full of themselves and they are never doing science. Science is but a thin facade for the evolutionist."Actually, Ichi, I'm with them on this one. You need to respond with some sort of intelligent data or evidence."You clearly live in a fantasy world Ichiban. There are many thousands of papers on subjects connected with evolution."Peepul is right, there are many papers published as evidences for evolution. There are papers published to the opposite too, however. I have found and read over 20 books at the local library concerning the subject. I would suggest, Ichi, that if you want people to respond to you, you have to offer some information to respond to.Just because they don't share the same view, doesn't mean they are loony, or stupid. They just don't believe what we believe. Even I think you need to read up, and I'm on your side.It's people like you who make creationists look bad, coming on scientific debate forums and spouting personal opinions, and religious gobble D gook. It's too bad.