PROOF against evolution

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.

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?

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?

ya know, YtalyaI don't think you;d get your 747 in the age of the universe even at that rate.
The real reason the anaology is wrong is that:
1) we don't know what the first things "living" were. They were NOT as complex as a 747 or current life is pretty sure.
2) there wasn't just ONE thing that would have been a "success" there are probable a bunch of different results that would work. like anything that would fly, glide or even not fall like a complete stone coming out of the junkyard would be a success.
3) No "rachet", even with non living things there would be a chance that there would be a chemical direction to the changes and one could build on another
4)it is pretty certainly NOT purely random like the junkyard. The chemistry is such that some things are much more likley than others. Like, in the analogy, an engine may tend to assemble from the parts more easily than other combinations and maybe even easily if you bring the parst together.

Buz, did you read my previous post?

Your source is using some definition of "information" that is NOT what information theory uses. Shannon's definition of information assigns a high information content to a random string.You need to supply the definition of information used by your source. (I've read part of it and couldn't find any rigorous definition in there maybe you can supply it). Shannon's definition is what is used by what I understand to be "information theory". I'm afraid you are making asserstions and/or believing sources on topics which you, again, know nothing.And you have jumped off to something new without answering many other points raised previously. If you want to keep hoping around and expect people to respond you have to be intellectually honest enough to close off previous discussions by acknowleging your errors. Your batting average so far is pretty close to 000.

You read the post and didn't get just why the junkyard analogy is very silly?Your comments don't add to it's quality at all.Living things show that they are not made up of parts that are designed for the purpose. They are cobbled together out of what is available and twisted and force fitted to work well enough be only just well enough.

Where in h... did you get an oval shaped explosion? Is it, lol, from the fact that some galaxy maps are shown as an oval? If there is actually some scientific publication that suggests that it would be something new for me to learn. Please refer to your sources.You have no clue what you are talking about. By it's very nature everywhere is the origin of the big bang. Yes, Earth, yes some planet in Andromeda all are.

---

Common sense isn't

I second that. k, you are soooo far off base it is unlikely you will learn a darn thing. Until you realize you don't know much at all that is.

---

Common sense isn't

kkslick, I suggest you slow down, take a deep breath and relax a bit.Try reading over some of the threads here on topics that you think are important and then add to those. You might do well to ask more questions and make more assertions.The fact is, KK, that you don't know very much about the subjects you are trying to make assertions about. There is a good chance you have all your "information" from some creationist sources. You'll find if you try to use those to defend your postition that they have been discussed and refuted here in great detail.There are many cases where those sources can reasonably be accused of being deliberately misleading. That is, you may have been lied to.You don't have to believe what I'm telling you here but a prudent man would pause for a moment and wonder what to do until you have really determined if I'm telling you the truth or not. So slow down and read a bit first. There is a great deal to learn.

---

Common sense isn't

And your point is?

Ah, I get it. Welcome sonicxp.I think you are confused about free oxygen and oxygen bound in any chemicals. There was no free oxygen until living things formed it. There was, obviously, lots of oxygen in various compounds.

This thread was, once upon a time in a galaxy far away, "proof against evolution". However, the poster who opened it was aptly named.If you are actually arguing something about abiogenesis rather than evolution you could tidy up with a new thread.

You should be more than a little embarassed to make this statment after you have made this one: You can not critise things which you know nothing about. It is astonishing that you think you can argue from ignorance.You might want to take a bit of time to read the dates and dating forum. If you want to show how the dating is wrong after you know something about it then have a go at it.

I'm afraid that this doesn't answer TNG03's question.The 50% number for mother and child and the 90+ percent number for us and chimps are NOT the same thing.We get 50% of our genome from a parent. And the other 50% from the other parent.Because both parents are human very large parts of their genomes will be identical. Therefore our genome will be very much more than 50% matched to either parent.I don't have numbers but the total diversity of all humans is pretty low so we will be near 99% to any other human and a bit more than that to our parents is what I would guess.We and chimps are a few more percent different.