Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

About the PRIMORDIAL SOUP (forming of a cell from small molecules) nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!! So therefore the question should instead be:"What would not convince you that evolution has happened?"Then there is mutations! Very very vitally important protein transduction pathways must be there for the organism to live. Dubble genes and new proteins dont make it more complex, because when they become to many they destroy these vitally important protein systems rather than making new ones. I see different protein transduction pathways as an indication of different created kinds.
Say that I go to a pharmacy and buy a different medicine BY CHANCE once a week. During that time I take/swallow from all the medicines Ive got one time each day. I keep buying new ones and the same ones as the weeks before. The question is: When will i die?Molecular similarity: Ok, There youve got something! Chimps and humans have identical haemoglobin and cytochrome Ive heard. And we are similar. But there is no problem for a technician to make a new very similar radio with slight changes.
And ABOUT those changes that differ us from the apes. CAN they happen by mutations? Even though we are very similar one must focus on the differences.
May be so that the ape-kind was created last of all the animals. Next day God made the same cells, but WITH changes. The chimps was the ones in the ape-kind that happened to mutate or combine genes so that they became more similar to us (exept from the hips, brain, faculty of speech). Gorillas mutated and combined genes "away" from us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

The Theory of Evolution explains what happened to that life once it got here, not how it got here.

---

And what would probably happen to that life if it got there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Also, if you have decided to flat out not accept evidence if it would mean accepting any scientific theory, no matter how overwhelming, then you are thinking dogmatically, not scientifically, and you can talk about proteins and mutations all you want but it is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

---

No, I accept the evidence! Talking about proteins and mutations is to think scientifically, not dogmatically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

In that case, can you really call your views "rational"? Are you being honest and fair to yourself? One more thing: do you think this is an acceptable attitude to do science?

---

Just because of the primordial soup and mutations I think evolution doesnt work. Its rational and acceptable to science to think something is impossible when the chance are 1 out of 10^(80.000)

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

We have a 98% DNA match to chimps. You have posed two possible explanations (1) They suddenly mutated 98% of their DNA to match ours (2) they 'combined' genes (mated) with us or amongst themselves to look like us.

​

In a murder case where a DNA match was found, do you think either of those explanations would not be laughed at? What is the probability that they would 'just happen' to have a 98% match? Some Creationists like to attempt probability arguments against evolution but this one blows them all completely away.

---

No, I mean: If our DNA was 97,5% similar to the ape-ancestor from the beginning, the chimps in thousands of years got themselves a DNA with a similarity of 98% to us. Thousands of years with many generations is different from the few hours (or what time it takes) of finding a DNA match in a murder case. The gorillas happened to have slight changes differing from us in thousands of years. "The chimps got more sixes on their die" and "gorillas got more "ones" on their die."Similarity of DNA is one thing. Another thing is the information it actually tell the organism. I focus on the phenotypically differences between us and apes.

In probability if you take a billion possible outcomes that are all equally likely to occur and put them in a bag and then draw one out, the probability that you will draw a specific one is one in a billion. This means that if you were to look at each individually you would come to the conclusion that the "odds" of any one happening are so awful that none of them will. However, one must. Now apply this to "primordial soup and mutations". The probability that some atoms would come together to make life are just the same as if they were to come together to produce granite or any other material. The odds against each possible substance being formed were astronomical, yet one was. And it just so happened that it created life. My point is that life was just as likely to occur as any other outcome.Me (Zauruz): The probability to draw ONE of these billion grains os sand is one in a billion. So before I draw a grain of sand someone else decide which one I will draw. I wouldnt take the right one I think. But if he decide that ANY of these grains should be picked, then the chance is one of one.
A granit is just a mixture of particular atoms/molecules I think. The atoms in the granite could have many many many ways to lie next to each other.

Obs. The first part of the former message is from Opticle!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:

Actually, you said "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!"

​

Why, exactly should anyone engage in any discussion or debate when you jump in by declaring your close mindedness?

---

Because they should engage in trying to convince me. Tell me how abiogenesis is possible then, so that I stop having a closed mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:

Please read your own words above, and realize how they must sound to others.

​

What if, for example, we said, "actually, your statements about probability are wrong, and here is an explanation...(etc)". Would you actually bother to read and understand the explanation? Your quote, with which I opened this post, implies you would not care what we said. Perhaps you should consider taking back that statement...

---

YES, I would read your explanations, I would! But I dont think I would be impressed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

Not sure where you got your 10^80,000 from either, perhaps
you could elaborate that since it seems to be the crux of
your problem in accepting evolution.

---

I see here in my book that I confused it with the calculated number of electrons in the whole universe, which is 10^80. But according to my book with some notes one have calculated the chance to be:
* One out of 10^40.000
* One out of 10^57.800
* one out of 10^450
According to Borel, a french expert on probability, an event shouldnt never ever anywhere in universe occur if the probability for it is smaller than one out of 10^50

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

The answer to my original post I think, for you, is
'convince me of abiogenesis and evolution becomes more
credible.'

​

Would that sum up your position better than 'Nothing will
convince me?'

---

I have to be convinced of both abiogenesis and about mutations, otherwise I wouldnt be convinced of evolution.Ok, I spoil that position "Nothing will convince of what you say" for a while and give you people a chance to convince me.

And a chance of 10^40.000 is very very much smaller than 1 of 10^50. So if one of 10^50 is on the very limit, one of 10^40.000 would be out of order.Another calculation in my book.10^80 electrons in the whole universe.
Each electron would have took part in 10^12 reactions per second.
Calcultated maximum existence time for universe: 3 x 10^10 years3 x 10^10 x 365,25 x 24 x 3600 x 10^12 x 10^80 = 9,46728 x 10^109Less than 10^110 reactions to occur. An event with a probability of 1 of 10^110 wouldnt possibly occur. How could then an event with a probability 1 of 10^450. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe got a more recent calculation about 1 of 10^40.000Chance of A PART of evolution: 1/(10^40.000)
Chance of creation: 1 - 1/(10^40.000)So whats the problem???????What would convince me that evolution has happened?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

You just said that NOTHING could ever be presented to you that would convince you that Evolution occurs. This means that you will not ever accept any evidence which would convince you, right?

​

Are you now changing your mind, and there is some evidence, if it came to light, which would convince you? If so, please explain.

---

You totally misunderstood me. The evidence I mentioned is that abiogenesis is impossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Um, no, not necessarily. Talking about proteins or whatever, yet all the while being unwilling to budge one inch WRT the evidence and how you view a scientific theory, no matter what evidence comes before you, means that you are not thinking scientifically.

​

To think scientifically, you must always be willing to change your views if the evidence suggests that you do so. Science is evidence-driven, not driven by religious or dogmatically-held views. You have already stated that you are not willing to do this. Therefore, you are not thinking scientifically. It doesn't matter how much you talk about proteins; you aren't doing so with a scientific mindset. What you are doing is deciding ahead of time what is "true" and attempting to pick and choose what evidence confirms your ideas and ignoring the rest. Science is conducted by gathering the evidence first, then theories are built around that evidence.

---

Im the one whos willing to change my view. Creationists see the facts as they are. We dont dogmatically think every organism descend from the same ancestor. We do research about it. You just assume all organisms have a common descent. You adapt your view of the age of the earth so that evolution might be possible. I and many creationists adapt the age of the earth by researches.And about scientifically thinking. I youre gonna get to the truth you must rely on both scientifically and supernaturally thinking.

Before the cell was formed there was no natural selection at all.

I dont know how it was calculated. In my book is only a reference."Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, vol 294, 1981, sid 105

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
Did you even read my post or the webpage linked to it? You are using a 'law' to discredit evolution (a science) when the author of that law himself stated that his 'law' is not applicable when you move into the realm of science.

​

Probabilities have no meaning when you are working with science.

---

Yes probabilities have with science to do. Ofcurse he was sceptic about an EXACT border for impossibilities. Then he meant that the border MIGHT be little smaller than he thought (one of 10^60 or one of 10^70). 1 of 10^40.000 is not "a little smaller".

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Correct, Octopice.
If an average man produces 3,650,000,000 sperm in one lifetime, and an average woman produces 360 ova in her lifeftime, the probability of any one of us being conceived is 1:1,314,000,000,000. And that does not count the improbability of our parents being paired. That alone could be as improbable as one in three billion. But then we have to factor in the improbability of BOTH of our parents being conceived, and our grandparents, etc., the probability of THEM being pared up, and suddenly even the most extreme abiogenesis probability calculations become moot. These insanely large numbers would have to go back generation upon generation for us to find out just how improbable our birth was, even given the existance of our species.
Thus by Zauruz's logic, he does not exist.

---

You did the same mistake as Octopic!
My parents "got together". The chance that A CHILD IS BORNE is quite large, unless there is some problem with infertility. But if youre gonna point out any mature ova and a particular sperm and decide yourself that they are going to be a zygote, then you would probably not guess right. You guessed wrong because Im here and "ZAURINA" is not.
NOW Im here. And the chance that I exist is 1 of 1.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:
Considering that you entered the discussionb saying "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!", engaging in trying to convince you seems rather futile. If you want to engage in debate, it's senseless to enter it in this manner.

---

No its not senseless to enter like that. If someone think true scientists should be convinced by evolution, then I WILL BE there immediately to show that theyre wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhimbo:
The actual probability arguments should go elsewhere - this discussion is supposed to be what evidence creationists would accept. You've already answered this with "none". End of discussion. If you want to discuss the probability arguments, look in another thread.

---

The sentence "What would convince you that evolution has happened?" has to do with probability arguments.However. I sometimes come across angry comments like - "Get away from here." - when my arguments are strong.

See the reference about 10^40.000Peter: "nor why you feel that a probablistic approach is
applicable to this problem."Me: Oh, I would LISTEN to what you would say.