Evolution is wrong

[Hades]

Well, i dont feel that way. however i was wondering how scientists alike respond to the statement that for a cell to create spontaneously would take 1 x 10 to the 40000th years. I feel this view pigeon holes the listener into thinking it requires every step up to the final step of the cell's creation to be valid. While, if we look at that statement being a logical assertion, a cell that fell slightly short, lets say to the 39999 years would be irrelevant, as per their reasoning. They compare this to the construction of a boeing 747 (as im sure we've all heard this) and that the possibility for the atoms to construct this mass in its entirety is identical. I feel this is a poor representation and again, reinforces the pigeon hole thinking. Orchestrating that amount of metallic atoms(lets assume there is nothing else save metals) would prove to be much more impossible. after all it didn't happen, right? But i digress; the construction of a protein from organic componds would react in a more characteristic method with other organic macromolecules. A mol of titanium would react in a less conducive manner than these two; i feel the disposition that is inherent within biological components to react and form with each other is what makes that an inappropriate comparison.

[ydoaPs]

direct them to: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[penagate]

But i digress

 

That kind of sums it up

[silkworm]

I'm sure this is all based on a misunderstanding of entropy and what amounts to freshman chemistry. Their arguments against radiometric dating are equally charming.

 

I spent Thursday night at a creation science meeting, and I didn't attack. I just asked for clarifications and watched their whole thing disentigrate as my PhD ringer simply asked that scientific definitions be used. The trick is not to attack them point for point. These people are scientifically illiterate and scared, so gentleness and simpleness is the best approach.

 

I tried to point out a few points to that while their argument is that evolution could not have occured because their misinterpretation of entropy can not be violated and that God created man by violating entropy that that invalidates what they understand to be entropy which then can not be used to invalidate evolution as in the original argument, and that you can't argue against radiometric dating and then continue to misapply C-14 to say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

 

Then I asked simple questions like if I'm a creation scientist and I have God in my toolkit at which point is it justified to quit and say he did it, and how I could go about proving "mature starlight" scientifically. Again, I didn't attack. Just asked for clarfifications.

 

Oddly this didn't fall on deaf ears as many of the crowd came to the conclusion they don't know anything.

 

I behaved myself, even when a group of people were referred to as "sodomites."

[wpenrose]

...i was wondering how scientists alike respond to the statement that for a cell to create spontaneously would take 1 x 10 to the 40000th years.

 

First of all, what is the source of the quote, and how did they derive that number? Without that information, the statement is worthless.

 

Remember that 73.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

Dangerous Bill

[silkworm]

Remember that 73.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

Hahahaha. Brilliant.

[Hades]

this is what was said

 

Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve.

 

and can be found here at the bottom of the article

 

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm

[Hades]

also, the derivitive of that computation i do not know and assume it came from the same place L. Ron Hubbard performed his treachery and raped the applications of legitimate hypothetical biochemicalphysicalmicrocomputational experiment thesis.

[ydoaPs]

a big section of the blind watchmaker is devoted to this. the answer is cumulative selection. it's not like protons, neutrons, and electrons were moving around and just randomly happened to make a cell one day.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

He's assuming that cells just popped up. Most likely they started as an incredibly simple life-forum, not as a full-blown eukaryotic cell.

[Hades]

yes i agree on the mis-application of c14 dating. Ive had several discussions regarding this, to which each reply is, 'tests indicate they are not older than..." in addition, explaining their half lives, the limits of carbon dating and explaining other isotopes such as k40 have remained unanswered. the k40 stymies them until they pronounce if c14 isnt valid then k40 isnt and then its a cycle of ignorance.

[ydoaPs]

He's assuming that cells just popped up. Most likely they started as an incredibly simple life-forum, not as a full-blown eukaryotic cell.

that's what i was trying to say at least.

[Hades]

yes it would imply bonding of every atom within what they consider an interval of time to create a cell. at any one point for every atom to converge and bond according, that chance is to the 40000th. im interesting in determining how they discovered this number.

[aguy2]

other isotopes such as k40 have remained unanswered.

What is there about the isotope k40 that remains unanswered?

aguy2

[Hades]

Im rather sleepy, i meant they did not answer when that was brought up.

[Xavier]

This apparent problem with evolution stems from the argument that cells are the ultimate building blocks of all life and that even the simplest possible cell that could perform the basic functions of gathering nutrients and reproducing is still a fairly complex machine. Since life cannot exist below the cellular level, says the creationist, the simplest possible cell must have spontaneously accreted before evolution had anything to work on.

This is really a simplification of Michael Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity, repackaged so that non-biochemists can grasp it.

The cell is not the ultimate building block of the evolutionary process; whether it is the ultimate building block of life is a basis for a definition of life and it is no limit to evolution. A item does not have to be 'alive' by any definition to be effected by natural selection, so long as it has the three requisite properties, felicity, fidelity and fecundity. (i.e. it makes accurate copies of itself and it can affect its own relative success in making those copies)

There are several just-so stories about how a chemical soup could have gained these properties and then used them to selectively evolve into cells without any step having an outrageous improbability - there is no great body of evidence for any of them but there is no reason to believe that none of them (or a similar mechanism) was the way life really began.

Michael Behe's suggestion lies heavily in the idea that such just-so stories are put-up jobs, twisting reason and credulity to fit the information that is known. Whether you feel that in such a circumstance God is a more reasonable answer or an even more ludicrous fracturing of reality really just depends on whether you were sufficiently effectively brainwashed as a child.

[Aardvark]

I behaved myself' date=' even when a group of people were referred to as "sodomites."[/quote']

 

Just out of curiosity, is the word 'sodomite' always perjorative?

[Edtharan]

This apparent problem with evolution stems from the argument that cells are the ultimate building blocks of all life and that even the simplest possible cell that could perform the basic functions of gathering nutrients and reproducing is still a fairly complex machine.

Even if you do take the cell as the most basic building block of life. There are many self replicating chemiclas and systems that occure naturaly and some of these culd be a precursor to life.

 

Take prions for example. we can argue as to weather these contitute life or not, but it is beside the point. They can self replicate by making similar protiens change into a copy. Some pritines have been shown to be able to replicate useing just a "soup" of amino acids without any help.

[insane_alien]

Ed: Personally i would class that as life, simple life but still life. if it can mutate to be slightly more efficient or do a different job and still reproduce then i would definately call it life.

[Edtharan]

if it can mutate to be slightly more efficient or do a different job and still reproduce then i would definately call it life.

I don't actualy draw a line between life and non-life. There is a large grey area between them. Prions fall into this gret area.

 

It is interesting to note that the amino acids that form prions and other protines can be detected in some gas clouds through out the galaxy. Knowing that certain amino acids can hook up into more complex protines without outside aid, and then some these protines can self replicate (with mutaiton and all that comes with that), it seems more and more likely that life could be scattered all over the galaxy.

 

These simple chemicals (protines) can display replication (creating a duplicate useing just amino acids) mutation, and a simple for of natural selection (converting one protine into the same as its self or as part of its self) then useing this one can see that even if it is not called life, it will lead to more complex forms and could eventually lead to life.

[Milken]

The main thing wrong with evolution is the biased, compartmentalized, in the public everything is fact, in private we just don't know, and the teaching of our young intelects who think because it's in a textbook it's a fact. The theory of Evolution has been inherited by many as a fact without scrutinizing the theory to see any of its inadequecies.

[ydoaPs]

The main thing wrong with evolution is the biased, compartmentalized, in the public everything is fact, in private we just don't know, and the teaching of our young intelects who think because it's in a textbook it's a fact. The theory of Evolution has been inherited by many as a fact without scrutinizing the theory to see any of its inadequecies.

Welcome, Creationists, to Science Forums and Debate!

[MM]

The main thing wrong with evolution is the biased, compartmentalized, in the public everything is fact, in private we just don't know, and the teaching of our young intelects who think because it's in a textbook it's a fact. The theory of Evolution has been inherited by many as a fact without scrutinizing the theory to see any of its inadequecies.

 

Yes I think you have to scrutinize the theory for it to evolve. The way I see it bringing creationism to it will just speed up the process.

[abskebabs]

Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40' date='000th power years just for one cell to evolve.

[/url']

As one of the main flaws your pointing out in this evolution theory is that the probablillity of random processes determing this evolution to result in something producing complex things like cells; What if this process is not entirely random and is, you could say causal depending on an organisms surroundings in order that; it mutates adaptively depending on them, hence suggesting it can know about them.

 

This proably reads like nonsense but the reason I bring it up is due to the results of some research done by John Cairns at Harvard the Harvard school of Health in Boston. Basically he placed bacteria lacking the gene to synthesize the lactase enzyme and placed these bacteria in an enviroment where lactose was their only food source.

 

These bacteria initially starved and became dormant for many weeks. However after a lag period of a day or two, several of his bacterial cells managed to grow and replicate; as they had managed to mutate to produce the required enzyme. What is potentially startling about this though is that it was only the bacteria that were left in the lactose solution that acquired these mutations.

 

After thinking about this recently however, I realised that the Cairns' resjults could be explained due to the random chance mutation logic however, depending on how he found out whether these bacteria mutated or not[presumably by taking out bacteria left in solution not containing lactose, and placing them in lactose solution].

 

The reason I started doubting the causal explanation is that these bacteria could mutate randomly in either solution to produce the lactose enzyme, but; It would only be noticed in the solution containing the lactose solution as having the mutation would be critical and bacteria with it would thrive in the enviroment. It would pose no survival advantage for a cell not in lactose solution, and so the No of bacteria with the mutation would have no reason to greatly increase, and may even decrease therefore. This may presumably cause the mutation not to be detected either.

 

I hope I got everyone thinking:D and didn't bore you if you've read this far.

[MM]

As one of the main flaws your pointing out in this evolution theory is that the probablillity of random processes determing this evolution to result in something producing complex things like cells; What if this process is not entirely random and is' date=' you could say causal depending on an organisms surroundings in order that; it mutates adaptively depending on them, hence suggesting it can know about them.

 

This proably reads like nonsense but the reason I bring it up is due to the results of some research done by John Cairns at Harvard the Harvard school of Health in Boston. Basically he placed bacteria lacking the gene to synthesize the lactase enzyme and placed these bacteria in an enviroment where lactose was their only food source.

 

These bacteria initially starved and became dormant for many weeks. However after a lag period of a day or two, several of his bacterial cells managed to grow and replicate; as they had managed to mutate to produce the required enzyme. What is potentially startling about this though is that it was only the bacteria that were left in the lactose solution that acquired these mutations.

 

After thinking about this recently however, I realised that the Cairns' resjults could be explained due to the random chance mutation logic however, depending on how he found out whether these bacteria mutated or not[presumably by taking out bacteria left in solution not containing lactose, and placing them in lactose solution'].

 

The reason I started doubting the causal explanation is that these bacteria could mutate randomly in either solution to produce the lactose enzyme, but; It would only be noticed in the solution containing the lactose solution as having the mutation would be critical and bacteria with it would thrive in the enviroment. It would pose no survival advantage for a cell not in lactose solution, and so the No of bacteria with the mutation would have no reason to greatly increase, and may even decrease therefore. This may presumably cause the mutation not to be detected either.

 

I hope I got everyone thinking:D and didn't bore you if you've read this far.

 

What I found interesting was the speed, a day or two which leads me to the hypothesis that the specific surroundings encloses possible random mutations to hotspots. If so and if the hotspots are beneficial in this case then a big part of evolutionary theory is missing.