Evolution is wrong

[Edtharan]

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 realised that this does not even hint at the sample size. For instance if you multiplied the sample space by 1 x 10 to the 40000 then it would be resonable to occure in 1 year.

 

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.

Again, speed is dependant on sample size. If he was using a simgle petri dish then a day or two would be quick, but if he was using hundreds of dishes then a day or two is more resonable. Also remember that in a high nutrient solution bacteria can multiply very rapidly and 2 days for bacteria can be many, many generations.

 

If he was starting off with lots of bacteria then one of these originals could have had the mutation (or the mutation was not removed - contamination) and this could also account for the rapid speed of the trait appearing.

 

Another posability is that the method that he used to remove the gene (this is usually done by inactivating the gene rather than cutting it out of the genome itsself). If this was the method then all the mutation had to do was reactivate the gene rather than create it from a mutation.

 

All these posabilities allow for a rapid re-aquisition of the gene without needing "a big part of evolutionary theory is missing.".

[abskebabs]

If he was starting off with lots of bacteria then one of these originals could have had the mutation (or the mutation was not removed - contamination) and this could also account for the rapid speed of the trait appearing.

 

Another posability is that the method that he used to remove the gene (this is usually done by inactivating the gene rather than cutting it out of the genome itsself). If this was the method then all the mutation had to do was reactivate the gene rather than create it from a mutation.

 

All these posabilities allow for a rapid re-aquisition of the gene without needing "a big part of evolutionary theory is missing.".

 

Ah..... Are you suggesting therefore; that some bacteria not in a lactose enviroment' date=' could have acquired the mutation[probably quite a few actually'] to produce lactase, but wouldn't have multiplied rapidly as having the gene would have no survival benefit? From my line of thinking, there should therefore be at least be a small amount of bacteria in the hypothetical petri dish remaining with the mutation as I cannot see it having any particular disadvantage either.

 

Therefore following this line of logic, some digestion of lactose should occur when the bacteria from the petri dish without lactose are placed in a solution containing lactose. I guess work probably has been done in this field, I just haven't bothered to look for all the results and their implications. I do know that a lot of bacteria and pathogens do show this abillity to hyper mutate in order to adapt when put under stressful conditions. A lot of researchers think it is likely that this too is an evolved phenomenon.

 

I guess to find out if hypermutation is occuring in so called "hotspots" we have to map the genome of the bacteria before, and after, finding where the mutations are occuring and observe if we start observing regular patterns. I've been enjoying talking about subjects like this and related to this for so long I think I shuld someday get off my lazy backside and have a look at these in detail! It would save me going on and on about on this forum at least I suppose.....

 

Anyway in my opinion, evolution is definitely not wrong, just that the theory can be built on so we can find out in more detail how the subtle mechanisms like mutations work to a much greater level of detail and then further intricacies in nature in this way can be found. It is just like at the beginning of the 20th century, saying that Newton was wrong, which he wasn't even though We ended up with the 2 theories[relativity and quantum mechanics] which helped describe 2 different scales of the Universe much better than Newton's laws could, and by whose principles; his laws could therefore be predicted. Phew! P.S. I acknoledge what I wrote may be full of innaccuracies, but I'm sure you get my drift.

[MM]

I realised that this does not even hint at the sample size. For instance if you multiplied the sample space by 1 x 10 to the 40000 then it would be resonable to occure in 1 year.

 

The sample space were pretty big anyway.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/issues/fabric/chap05.html

 

"What did these men (both atheists) discover? They concluded that the chances of a living cell coming into existence spontaneously anywhere in the cosmos would take 10 to the 40,000th power years. Anything with less probability (which means a higher number) than 10 to the 50th power is never going to happen in the entire universe, we are told by probability experts. "The chances," he said, "of a tornado blowing through a junkyard, and creating a 747 are vastly greater." "

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No scientist has ever said that cells just popped up randomly. You don't even know what science says, and you're trying to criticise it?

[MM]

No scientist has ever said that cells just popped up randomly. You don't even know what science says, and you're trying to criticise it?

 

It was an analogy for random events. It's pretty common to get a grasp of the possibility of something happening. However I do disagree with the conclusion cause I belive evolutionary theory is just in its infancy.

[zyncod]

Anything with less probability (which means a higher number) than 10 to the 50th power is never going to happen in the entire universe, we are told by probability experts.

 

That's wrong.

 

Just in the last five seconds, in your pinky finger, many things have happened that have a probability of less than 10 to the 50th power.

 

Or, here:

 

032594239802355431028975302548631053150987568032537

 

What is the probability that I would pick this exact string of numbers to type out? 1e-51. Did I type out this exact string of numbers? Yes. So the above statement is clearly wrong.

[Edtharan]

Ah..... Are you suggesting therefore; that some bacteria not in a lactose enviroment, could have acquired the mutation[probably quite a few actually] to produce lactase, but wouldn't have multiplied rapidly as having the gene would have no survival benefit? From my line of thinking, there should therefore be at least be a small amount of bacteria in the hypothetical petri dish remaining with the mutation as I cannot see it having any particular disadvantage either.

Yes there would have been some cells in the control that did develop the lactase mutation (or just re-aquired or reactivated it), but there would not have been any survival advantage, or even a slight disadvantage as the bacteria would have to "spend" metabolism on it.

 

If just 1 or 2 cells (or only a few) aquired the lactase mutation then they would only constitute a very small numberof the final cells. It is very posable that the cells selected for testing did not contain the lactase gene as the number of the was so few. Not only this but if the mutation to produce lactase could be aquiered by a single mutation then it is equaly likely that it would loose this mutation again if it gave no survival benifit (this is called genetic drift and is what drives punctated evolution).

 

I guess to find out if hypermutation is occuring in so called "hotspots" we have to map the genome of the bacteria before, and after, finding where the mutations are occuring and observe if we start observing regular patterns. I've been enjoying talking about subjects like this and related to this for so long I think I shuld someday get off my lazy backside and have a look at these in detail! It would save me going on and on about on this forum at least I suppose.....

Mutation hotspots have been identified in genomes. In humans (and other animals) they have identified some in the locations that govern your immune system. If you know how the immune system works then this makes a lot of sense as it allows the human immune system to evolve to keep pace with new pathogens that occure (think about what european deseases did to the native americans).

 

It makes sense that genes that would beifit from being highly varied woudl evolve a mechanism that would allow that variation to occure, also genes that need to be astble would evolve methods to reduce the rate of mutation.

 

"What did these men (both atheists) discover? They concluded that the chances of a living cell coming into existence spontaneously anywhere in the cosmos would take 10 to the 40,000th power years. Anything with less probability (which means a higher number) than 10 to the 50th power is never going to happen in the entire universe, we are told by probability experts. "The chances," he said, "of a tornado blowing through a junkyard, and creating a 747 are vastly greater." "

I supose that a complete modern cell with all the components that it has might take that long to "randomly" occure, but if you take into account evolution and natural selection (even in nonliving system) then it make the appearance of a cell "non-random". Mutations might be random, but once you apply selection (in any form) to it then it becomes non random.

 

We do not (and maybe can not) know exactly how life started in the universe (or even just on earth). But from what we do know we can make estimates on how quickly life can occure in a sutiable environment. These range from around a billion years to a few thousand years. Life on earth seems to have got started fairly quick (a few million years), so it dosen't fall in either extreme, but was fairly quick.

[Milken]

That's wrong.

 

Just in the last five seconds' date=' in your pinky finger, many things have happened that have a probability of less than 10 to the 50th power.

 

Or, here:

 

032594239802355431028975302548631053150987568032537

 

What is the probability that I would pick this exact string of numbers to type out? 1e-51. Did I type out this exact string of numbers? Yes. So the above statement is clearly wrong.[/quote']

 

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Another classic post!

[zyncod]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Another classic post!

 

Yes, I know. I was not being serious.

 

But, think about it this way:

If you were using a random number generator to generate 50 digit long strings of numbers and you got:

11111.... (I'm not going to write the full string out because I'm lazy. Lazy and self-important.)

 

then you would probably think that something was up. It's not an impossible result, it's just extremely improbable (1e-50) that something like that would occur. But then you realize that there are many such patterns that would strike you as odd:

12121212.....

123454321....

Fibonacci sequences

etc, etc, etc...

 

And then you realize that you're being teleological. The number of 50 digit strings with some kind of pattern actually form a fairly significant minority of the total number of possibilities. Just as there is with life.

 

If you take random recombination of organic molecules as probably existed during prebiotic Earth, there are many, many possibilities of how a self-replicating molecule could come into being. It doesn't have to be DNA with a DNA polymerase made out of amino acids. It could have been a self-replicating RNA (as most scientists think now). It could have been a self-replicating protein. It could have been silicon-based. It could have been a crystal (if viruses are "alive," so are crystals).

 

No scientist has ever stated (post-Francesco Redi) that a fully functional prokaryote burst into being. The actual probability of an organism as complex as, say, E. coli (which is, I'm sure, what the creationists used as their probability calculation model, since they don't seem to be willing to bother with most primary research) spontaneously forming from a prebiotic soup is actually far lower than the 10^-40000. You might as well expect Douglas Adams' whale and petunias to appear in the sky.

 

It's actually quite stupid and ignorant to continue to quote these figures of probability as if they had anything to do with how life formed. The fact is, given how this planet was situated and its chemical makeup, it would be surprising if life (in some form or other) didn't form. Earth is, I'll grant you, not a likely scenario. Planets are not common. Rocky planets are extremely uncommon. Rocky planets with liquid water are vanishingly uncommon. Rocky planets with liquid water and the means of forming complex "organic" molecules are stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon. But once this scenario occurs, life is almost a foregone conclusion.

[abskebabs]

Not only this but if the mutation to produce lactase could be aquiered by a single mutation then it is equaly likely that it would loose this mutation again if it gave no survival benifit (this is called genetic drift and is what drives punctated evolution).

I seriously doubt that it would take just one mutation or anywhere in that region to cause bacteria; without the gene to produce lactase,to obtain it.

[Edtharan]

I seriously doubt that it would take just one mutation or anywhere in that region to cause bacteria; without the gene to produce lactase,to obtain it.

A large number of genes can be switched off and on with just a single mutation. These mutations are in control genes that govern how (and if) other genes express them selves. Depending on the method used by the scientists, it could all be down to the control genes as to weather the lactase gene was active or not and therefore a single mutation that allowed the control gene for the lactase genes to be reactivated.

[Milken]

Yes' date=' I know. I was not being serious.

 

But, think about it this way:

If you were using a random number generator to generate 50 digit long strings of numbers and you got:

11111.... (I'm not going to write the full string out because I'm lazy. Lazy and self-important.)

 

then you would probably think that something was up. It's not an impossible result, it's just extremely improbable (1e-50) that something like that would occur. But then you realize that there are many such patterns that would strike you as odd:

12121212.....

123454321....

Fibonacci sequences

etc, etc, etc...[/quote']

 

I know, I'm pretty sure I've read some of your posts. For me, it's, what qualifies this statistic?1/10^50 is a VERYsmall number, so it's believable it's applied to something. Its far more people than have ever existed but it's alot less than the number of atoms in the universe, 10^66.

 

And then you realize that you're being teleological. The number of 50 digit strings with some kind of pattern actually form a fairly significant minority of the total number of possibilities. Just as there is with life.

 

If you take random recombination of organic molecules as probably existed during prebiotic Earth' date=' there are many, many possibilities of how a self-replicating molecule could come into being. It doesn't have to be DNA with a DNA polymerase made out of amino acids. It could have been a self-replicating RNA (as most scientists think now). It could have been a self-replicating protein. It could have been silicon-based. It could have been a crystal (if viruses are "alive," so are crystals). [/quote']

 

Don't you need DNA to have RNA or atleast another identical RNA, since RNA makes copies? To even make RNA you need a lot of proteins, one protein may require 100 amino acids. Currently I'm not aware of anything complex made by natural self-replication. Silicon is worse because it doesn't bond nearly as well as carbon, especially with water. Crystals?

 

No scientist has ever stated (post-Francesco Redi) that a fully functional prokaryote burst into being. The actual probability of an organism as complex as' date=' say, E. coli (which is, I'm sure, what the creationists used as their probability calculation model, since they don't seem to be willing to bother with most primary research) spontaneously forming from a prebiotic soup is actually far lower than the 10^[b']-[/b]40000. You might as well expect Douglas Adams' whale and petunias to appear in the sky.

 

I think it's gross when people say the Universe is uncaused. PLEASE HELP, what's current research on the probability as well as various mutation rates. The only sources I find for mutation rates is 1/ 100,000.

 

It's actually quite stupid and ignorant to continue to quote these figures of probability as if they had anything to do with how life formed. The fact is' date=' given how this planet was situated and its chemical makeup, it would be surprising if life (in some form or other) [b']didn't[/b] form. Earth is, I'll grant you, not a likely scenario. Planets are not common. Rocky planets are extremely uncommon. Rocky planets with liquid water are vanishingly uncommon. Rocky planets with liquid water and the means of forming complex "organic" molecules are stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon. But once this scenario occurs, life is almost a foregone conclusion.

 

Hmmm, I disagree because in cases where the unknows is involved, prob/stat allows to access the likelihood of something, even in typical mundane life. Whether you realise it or not we make decisions based on inate prob and stat (*wonder if you'll let me get away with that*).

"Stupendifyingly vanqishingly uncommon" whew some pharase, but what you're "giving" is stupendifyingly vanqishingly alot. I think many origin-of-life scientists would categorically disagree with you. Since the field is still scratching their heads at step one.

 

 

 

ALL ELSE:

 

Does it seem wrong of Evolution to go from immune systems adapting(suppose to anyway), the moths adapting, and bacteria adapting into a saying this proves humans came from a single celled organism?

 

I'm not trying to start anything but it's a leap of the given data.

[zyncod]

I know, I'm pretty sure I've read some of your posts.

 

Hey!

 

For me, it's, what qualifies this statistic?1/10^50 is a VERYsmall number, so it's believable it's applied to something. Its far more people than have ever existed but it's alot less than the number of atoms in the universe, 10^66.

 

1e-50 is a very small number, but, as I've proven, it's not at all impossible for something with a probability of 1e-50 to happen. Predicting beforehand that something will happen and knowing afterward are two entirely different things.

 

Don't you need DNA to have RNA or atleast another identical RNA, since RNA makes copies? To even make RNA you need a lot of proteins, one protein may require 100 amino acids. Currently I'm not aware of anything complex made by natural self-replication. Silicon is worse because it doesn't bond nearly as well as carbon, especially with water. Crystals?

 

Right now, as life is, you need to have nucleic acids and proteins for replication of nucleic acids. Viral RNA genomes can be reproduced from a single template RNA. However, there are multiple examples of RNA with 'ribozyme' activity; that is, RNA that is capable of carry out chemical reactions (the traditional domain of proteins). DNA shows no such capability. It is possible, though far from proven, that the earliest common ancestor of life was a self-replicating RNA.

 

Crystals were a somewhat specious example since they fulfill all the requirements for life as we understand it now, if viruses are alive. Of course, any definition of life is bound to be flawed in many respects.

 

I think it's gross when people say the Universe is uncaused. PLEASE HELP, what's current research on the probability as well as various mutation rates. The only sources I find for mutation rates is 1/ 100,000.

 

It depends on which organism you're talking about and whether repair pathways are calculated in that result.

 

Hmmm, I disagree because in cases where the unknows is involved, prob/stat allows to access the likelihood of something, even in typical mundane life. Whether you realise it or not we make decisions based on inate prob and stat (*wonder if you'll let me get away with that*).

"Stupendifyingly vanqishingly uncommon" whew some pharase, but what you're "giving" is stupendifyingly vanqishingly alot. I think many origin-of-life scientists would categorically disagree with you. Since the field is still scratching their heads at step one.

 

That whole rocky planet thing was utter speculation on my part. But the universe does not seem to be over-inundated with life, so it's either the absence of places that can support life or the absence of life itself.

 

Does it seem wrong of Evolution to go from immune systems adapting(suppose to anyway), the moths adapting, and bacteria adapting into a saying this proves humans came from a single celled organism?

 

Nothing is ever proven in science except for negative results. We can state for sure that something didn't happen but we can't ever state that something did happen. However, the data strongly supports evolution from a single celled organism. Things like the commonality of the genetic code (an essentially arbitrary code shared by all life on this planet). But we can't, and probably never will, have any surety about how life began. Abiogenesis and evolution are entirely separate things.

[Milken]

Yes, I know. I was not being serious.

 

I know, I've read some of your posts.

 

But' date=' think about it this way:

If you were using a random number generator to generate 50 digit long strings of numbers and you got:

11111.... (I'm not going to write the full string out because I'm lazy. Lazy and self-important.)

 

then you would probably think that something was up. It's not an impossible result, it's just extremely improbable (1e-50) that something like that would occur. But then you realize that there are many such patterns that would strike you as odd:

12121212.....

123454321....

Fibonacci sequences

etc, etc, etc...[/quote']

 

In regards to the validity of the figure (1e-50). It's conceivably applied to something which will never happen because it's vastly more than the number of people that have ever existed and less probable than say, one atom in the entire universe (1e-66).

 

And then you realize that you're being teleological. The number of 50 digit strings with some kind of pattern actually form a fairly significant minority of the total number of possibilities. Just as there is with life.

 

The formation of DNA is not an intuitive pattern. It's irregular and complex so it would not stand out as a pattern in a string.

 

If you take random recombination of organic molecules as probably existed during prebiotic Earth' date=' there are many, many possibilities of how a self-replicating molecule could come into being. It doesn't have to be DNA with a DNA polymerase made out of amino acids. It could have been a self-replicating RNA (as most scientists think now). It could have been a self-replicating protein. It could have been silicon-based. It could have been a crystal (if viruses are "alive," so are crystals). [/quote']

 

If it's RNA you'll need two identical in the same place at the same time without them reacting with anything else in the environment. A self-replicating protein, it would take around 75-150(or more) of the right aminos to get one protein, which is useless. Silicon doesn't bond nearly as well has carbon and doesn't mix with water as smoothly. Crystals, like in clay? No comment, I may be ignorant here. Are there any complex self replicating occurrences?

 

No scientist has ever stated (post-Francesco Redi) that a fully functional prokaryote burst into being. The actual probability of an organism as complex as' date=' say, E. coli (which is, I'm sure, what the creationists used as their probability calculation model, since they don't seem to be willing to bother with most primary research) spontaneously forming from a prebiotic soup is actually far lower than the 10^[b']-[/b]40000. You might as well expect Douglas Adams' whale and petunias to appear in the sky.

 

PLEASE HELP, what does recent research suggest. Do you know of any good info on mutation rates? I always see 1/100,000.

 

It's actually quite stupid and ignorant to continue to quote these figures of probability as if they had anything to do with how life formed. The fact is' date=' given how this planet was situated and its chemical makeup, it would be surprising if life (in some form or other) [b']didn't[/b] form. Earth is, I'll grant you, not a likely scenario. Planets are not common. Rocky planets are extremely uncommon. Rocky planets with liquid water are vanishingly uncommon. Rocky planets with liquid water and the means of forming complex "organic" molecules are stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon. But once this scenario occurs, life is almost a foregone conclusion.

 

Wow, stupid and ignorant, it seems like a good idea in cases of uncertainty. Not that a certain odd convinces everyone but it's good to know what you're up against. We do it all the time in everyday life, without detailed calculations of course.

"Stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon", whew, can't top it, you're also allowing a "stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon" amount to happen before you say "life is almost a foregone conclusion". Francis Crick thinks the point at which you mention, life is still "stupendifyingly vanishingly uncommon". So he believes aliens may have been responsible.

[ShadowMan]

I have questions maybe someone can answer for me about evolution.

 

If we are evolved why are the bones we have today are the same that are in the ground from millions of years.

 

How did atmosphere come about? Did it evolve? From what?

 

If an animal was evolving and had not evolved eyes yet it would die since it could not see food? Would this happeni in evolution

 

 

I do not know to much about evolution and want to learn more.

[Dak]

I have questions maybe someone can answer for me about evolution.

 

How did atmosphere come about? Did it evolve? From what?

 

No. the atmosphere does not evolve' date=' as it doesnt posess the neccesary attributes to, eg capable of reprodusing, capable of passing on its information to it's offspring, limitation of resorses etc.

 

I'd like to point out at this point that 'evolution' merely means the change in species over time... NOT the complete adeistic creation of everything from nothingness. Thats the religiouse fundie definition of evolution, not the scientific one.

 

If an animal was evolving and had not evolved eyes yet it would die since it could not see food? Would this happeni in evolution

 

many life forms -- plants, bacteria, jelly fish, etc -- do not have eyes. they just sence in other ways.

[Milken]

Hey!

 

I meant you've said some coherent things that make sense. But Milken has been known to make sarcastic comments

 

1e-50 is a very small number' date=' but, as I've proven, it's not at all impossible for something with a probability of 1e-50 to happen. Predicting beforehand that something will happen and knowing afterward are two entirely different things.[/quote']

 

You're right but I assume they mean more scientific ideas. Not sure about all stats&prob but in the 1967 Mathematical challenge to evolution one of the mathematicians mentioned 1e-50.

 

Right now' date=' as life is, you need to have nucleic acids and proteins for replication of nucleic acids. Viral RNA genomes can be reproduced from a single template RNA. However, there are multiple examples of RNA with 'ribozyme' activity; that is, RNA that is capable of carry out chemical reactions (the traditional domain of proteins). It is possible, though far from proven, that the earliest common ancestor of life was a self-replicating RNA.[/quote']

 

RNA is hard to make in a lab, pre-earth environment, unassited, forget about it. It's "." <--that possible. Maybe you don't believe in God but you do believe in mathematical miracles. Still need enzymes and catalyst. A virus seems like such a stable thing, unlikely to produce life. Not only are we a product of change working through survival but now a virus, I'm saddened.

 

 

It depends on which organism you're talking about and whether repair pathways are calculated in that result.

 

Measuring repair pathways is beyond me. Any organism' date=' a rat, bear, squirrel, guess I'll keep looking for the info, probaly have to check out some science journals. Is it more genetics/biochemistry/etc.?

 

That whole rocky planet thing was utter speculation on my part. But the universe does not seem to be over-inundated with life, so it's either the absence of places that can support life or the absence of life itself.

 

Accurate specualtion, it's both, especially if it's carbon water based life.

 

Nothing is ever proven in science except for negative results. We can state for sure that something didn't happen but we can't ever state that something did happen. However' date=' the data strongly supports evolution from a single celled organism. [/quote']

 

They all basically look the same, some nearly undistinguishable. This is over 3 billion years.

 

Things like the commonality of the genetic code (an essentially arbitrary code shared by all life on this planet).

 

Also says common design. Nothing about DNA suggests chance' date=' it's more complex and structed than anything man made.

 

But we can't, and probably never will, have any surety about how life began. Abiogenesis and evolution are entirely separate things.

 

Sceintifically, I agree.

 

 

Shadow Man,

 

In answering the bones question. Just goto some evolution sites and they'll show you some ape I mean human pictures with different bones OR say we haven't been around long enough to evolve in the bones

 

You'll also see experiments about peppered moths changing colors(they say this is the fact of evolution), bacteria adapting (they say it's the power of evolution), or you'll see a series of pictures as an explanation of evolution.

 

Does the paragraph above mean a bacteria turned into a human? No

 

Answers in Genesis is a popular Young Earth Creation Site (don't think I've been)

 

Talk Design is THE evolution site.

 

You may also SEARCH in the different posts about different subjects and hear peoples opinions.

[ShadowMan]

You did not answer my question how do evolutionists beleive the atmosphere and air came into existence

[Milken]

Dak answered it. Evolution only deals with the first living organism(probaly some single celled organism) to humans. Technically, it doesn't deal with the origin of life either.

 

Honestly as for the Universe, right now, it's a one sided Creation arguement. There are no acceptable non theistic models of the Universe.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have questions maybe someone can answer for me about evolution.

 

If we are evolved why are the bones we have today are the same that are in the ground from millions of years.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. The bones that we have dug up that are millions of years old are different than human bones today.

 

How did atmosphere come about? Did it evolve? From what?

The atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide in the beginning (given off by various processes in the earth) and it was converted to have more oxygen in it by various photosynthetic bacteria.

 

If an animal was evolving and had not evolved eyes yet it would die since it could not see food? Would this happeni in evolution

No. There are many animals that are completely blind (certain types of fish, various bats, etc) that don't need to be able to see because of their environment (too dark) and such.

[Edtharan]

You did not answer my question how do evolutionists beleive the atmosphere and air came into existence

Well looking at rock, they can see that at some point in the past the atmosphere was very different from what it is today. The atmosphere did not contain much oxygen (and neither did the oceans). Eventually an organism evolved that was able to produce energy from sunlight (photosynthisys) by breaking down certain molecules and combineing it with hydrogen (from the oceans - water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen). The "waste" product was oxygen.

 

Oxygen is actualy quite toxic. It is highly reactive and would "oxidize" many of the chemical reactions needed for life. However some organisms were able to "mop up" these free oxygen radicals (I am sure most of you would have heard of "free radicals") and any organism that could do so would have had a survival advantage (if you can live in a toxin where others can't then you don't have as much competition and can dominate that niche).

 

Eventually the reactivity of oxygen was harnessed by life to speed up certain reactions and life became dependant on it (as it was so plentiful and those that didn't have the advantage of the extra energy and chemical reaction speed could not reproduce as quickly).

 

The predictions that can be made from this is that there may still be areas on earth that have continued to be low in oxygen and so these oxygen dependant organisms may still exist, not only that, but these organism would most likely be killed by oxygen (as it would still be toxic to them). And scientists have discovered these organisms here on earth. The have found bacteria living benath the surface of the earth (around a kilometre under the ground) that do not use oxygen at all and in fact oxygen is highly toxic to them.

 

So the atmosphere did not "evolve" but it was changes by organisms that evolved to use sunlight to produce energy, and this change in the atmosphere forced another evolutionary change to occure in other organisms.

 

Some people use the word "evolution" to mean change. Their use of the word "evolution" in this context is what causes the most missunderstanding of the "theory" of evolution that I know of.

[Dak]

You did not answer my question how do evolutionists beleive the atmosphere and air came into existence

 

Any 'beliefs' in this matter that evolutionists have will be coincidental, and nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

If you ask an evolutionist how the atmosphere and air came into existance, they'd probably say "I dont know, go ask a geologist or someone".

 

Current theory in this matter, afaik, is that the big bang made matter, which then coalesced over ages into planets; our one holds it's atmosphere due to a combination of gravity and, i believe, the ozone layer (possibly... im not sure).

 

As Edtharan and cap'n said, the atmosphere has changed (NOT evolved) over time as a result of the emerging life-forms converting atmospheric gasses from one form to another.

 

Evolution only deals with the first living organism(probaly some single celled organism) to humans. Technically, it doesn't deal with the origin of life either.

 

Indeed. the theory of evolution -- and i want to stress this -- concerns itself with the change of allele frequency over time within populations. it PRESUMES the existance of stuff like planets, atmosphere, and lifeforms and then explains how these lifeforms change over time.

 

Whatever theory/religiouse teaching you accept, i think we can all agree that, at some point, the sun, earths atmosphere, and life were somehow created; evolution picks up the story from there.

 

if you want to know how the first life, that evolution first acted upon, was created, then the variouse abiogenesis theorys are what you should look into; the creation of the sun and earth etc is in the domain of phisysics.

 

Anyway, my point was that the theory of evolution works, reguardless of wether the earth, the sun, the atmosphere etc, and the first life, were created naturally or by a god -- whichever, after life had emerged, it then evolved into more complex forms over an extremely long period of time.

 

 

Honestly as for the Universe, right now, it's a one sided Creation arguement. There are no acceptable non theistic models of the Universe.

 

the big bang?

 

Anyway, 'we dont know how it happened' doesn't prove that a god did it.

[Hades]

if 'god' has kept the 'answers' so elusive since man's creation, do u really think the ultimate answers lay in bacteria, or tigerlilly's or cheese sandwich chemistry?

The f'in problem with religion is how they inherit the unknown. Can't understand what the sun rises and sets? Its a deity. After its been proven its due to orbit and rotation they rescind. And this is the process now, as word from the vatican has announced it is foolish not to believe in evolution. They had no choice but to abandon their safe-zone in the unknown of evolution until the information presented was beyond reasonable doubt. ****in seriously man, the bloody glove and 911 call saying it was OJ simpson are about as incriminating as vestigial organs dinosaur fossils.

on my personal interests at 2am im certain if a deity did create everything for us, it wasn't exclusive to a species as undeserving and disgusting as our world has become. thats it. im going to create my own church. screw this.

 

evology. combines dianetics with proper sandwich making techniques. and well serve tacos on monday.

[Milken]

Indeed. the theory of evolution -- and i want to stress this -- concerns itself with the change of allele frequency over time within populations. it PRESUMES the existance of stuff like planets' date=' atmosphere, and lifeforms and then explains how these lifeforms change over time.[/quote']

 

It's explaination starts with the first living cell. The creator of ToE did not believe in the Genesis account of creation. Seriously, the theory invokes the question.

 

Whatever theory/religiouse teaching you accept' date=' i think we can all agree that, at some point, the sun, earths atmosphere, and life were somehow created; evolution picks up the story from there.[/quote']

 

The "story" includes the creation of everything up until man.

 

if you want to know how the first life' date=' that evolution first acted upon, was created, then the variouse abiogenesis theorys are what you should look into; the creation of the sun and earth etc is in the domain of phisysics.[/quote']

100% agreement

 

 

the big bang?

 

Anyway' date=' 'we dont know how it happened' doesn't prove that a god did it.[/quote']

 

It's not really possible to prove the existence of God with 100% certainty any more than you can prove a bacteria turned into a man. Especially in terms of empirical evidence.

 

The entire physics model(big bang included) is so theistic, it's disgusting to some non-theists. Some of have made career "blunders" because the results are so obviously inferred to be theistic. Even the far-fetched string theory would not put a death knell to a theistic model of the universe. It would just keep respectable scholars from laughing at you when you talk about other universes and other nonsense.

 

 

if 'god' has kept the 'answers' so elusive since man's creation' date=' do u really think the ultimate answers lay in bacteria, or tigerlilly's or cheese sandwich chemistry? [/quote']

 

It's not a secret for people who believe in God. Not sure what the point is to the second sentence.

 

The f'in problem with religion is how they inherit the unknown. Can't understand what the sun rises and sets? Its a deity. After its been proven its due to orbit and rotation they rescind.

 

Your confusing ancient culture with modern. A scientifica explaination doesn't really answer the question of 'cause'. For instance' date=' what causes orbit and rotation?

 

And this is the process now, as word from the vatican has announced it is foolish not to believe in evolution. They had no choice but to abandon their safe-zone in the unknown of evolution until the information presented was beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Who cares about the vatican's opinon, seriouslylol. Professor Pope

 

****in seriously man' date=' the bloody glove and 911 call saying it was OJ simpson are about as incriminating as vestigial organs dinosaur fossils. [/quote']

 

An absurd analogy vestigal organs in humans go just like your first paragraph. In the not to distant past there were plenty of organs we didn't understand. An appendix, according to some, we used to be herbivores. Whales uses hips in reproduction. By the theory of evolution, vestigal organs should not exist, why should it be kept if it serves no present function in the environment? What's the big deal about dinosaur fossils?

 

on my personal interests at 2am im certain if a deity did create everything for us' date=' it wasn't exclusive to a species as undeserving and disgusting as our world has become. thats it. im going to create my own church. screw this.

 

evology. combines dianetics with proper sandwich making techniques. and well serve tacos on monday.[/quote']

lol

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The "story" includes the creation of everything up until man.

All evolution says is that allele frequency changes over time. It says nothing about cells turning into slugs.

 

It's not really possible to prove the existence of God with 100% certainty any more than you can prove a bacteria turned into a man. Especially in terms of empirical evidence.

You can't prove the existence of God. You can use the fossil record to prove that animals have evolved over time.

 

The entire physics model(big bang included) is so theistic, it's disgusting to some non-theists. Some of have made career "blunders" because the results are so obviously inferred to be theistic. Even the far-fetched string theory would not put a death knell to a theistic model of the universe. It would just keep respectable scholars from laughing at you when you talk about other universes and other nonsense.

I'd suggest you don't dismiss something unless you understand it.

 

Who cares about the vatican's opinon, seriouslylol. Professor Pope

I believe most Christians do.

 

An absurd analogy vestigal organs in humans go just like your first paragraph. In the not to distant past there were plenty of organs we didn't understand. An appendix, according to some, we used to be herbivores. Whales uses hips in reproduction. By the theory of evolution, vestigal organs should not exist, why should it be kept if it serves no present function in the environment? What's the big deal about dinosaur fossils?

Erm. Vestigal organs are kept because there is little to no benefit of them going away. They will eventually, perhaps; don't assume that in this point in time, evolution has stopped and all animals are in their ultimate form. They can still get rid of those hips in a few million years, if it gives them benefits.

 

Milken, I highly suggest you understand what you try to refute.