PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The Origin of Life
       Calculating the Probability of that First Organism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, I need point out that this is not my original work but was taken from an informal paper by Charles E. Brewster, Ph.D, an Idist, and expressed in my own words.

We were discussing in another forum the methodology the science of ID uses to conclude that the first primitive unicelled critter had to have been designed and I agreed to delve into some science and math to clarify this. All comments or questions are welcome.

Chemical reactions operate quite differently than calculating the odds of say, winning a lottery.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within, in the words of Brewster, an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

For these reasons, Brewster concludes, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen. When Dembski came along, for some reason, he felt that number should be higher, 10^125. But to me that is too large considering there are only an estimated 10^80 atoms in all the universe. So, I feel that the upper barrier of the Explanatory Filter should be based on science and what better science than chemistry.

I have seen this same figure bandied about by others and vaguely remember discussing it in a chem class some 30 years ago. Hence, I agree with Brewster that 10:67 should be the barrier contrast of the Explanatory Filter.

For those of you that have never studied the Explanatory Filter (or EF) it’s not important, just understand it is one tool in science that ultimately is used to establish an upper barrier limit of probability where an event is so unlikely, it will never occur in reality.


The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 300 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker. The problem is they come out completely “racemized.” There’s a fancy word and I will define it for you. The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

The amino acids produced in nature consist of about 50% left handed and 50% right handed.  So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.

So we are going to give the Naturalist his primeval ooze from which that first protist magically popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the probability barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism.

And many of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

Could this ever happen in nature? Of course not we are off the map of the probability barrier before we ever get our first protein. These were designed.

But just so the Naturalist won’t think we don’t know how to calculate the probability of our little organism, we’ll go ahead and do it just so we can say we did.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds and it is undebateable by anyone that this could occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power! That’s one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

There is no other logical conclusion but to surmise that since our cells were designed, therefore, so was man.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:06 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So lets hear a bit about what ID has so far discovered on the designer, as I'm fascinated.

In particular, have any calculations been made as to the proability that it could exist?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:20 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***So lets hear a bit about what ID has so far discovered on the designer, as I'm fascinated.

In particular, have any calculations been made as to the proability that it could exist?***

No one, to my knowledge, would have any idea who the designer was. How could math come into that scenario?

And, logically, design has little to do with a designer. You don't have to know who the design engineer was when you plug some bread into the toaster. Just enjoy the toaster.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:46 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No one, to my knowledge, would have any idea who the designer was. How could math come into that scenario?


You tell me... this is your thread

As you used statistical arguement to reach the conclusion there is a designer, I wanted to hear what it has to say about the designer itself.

And, logically, design has little to do with a designer.


Does it? why is this logical?

You don't have to know who the design engineer was when you plug some bread into the toaster. Just enjoy the toaster.


True, but a toaster is not really a good analogy to the world/universe in which we live is it?


Anyway, looking forward to more from you on this designer fellow/being/thing/object. Cheers


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:55 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
AgnosticBob

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I certainly appreciate you arguments...they seem interesting and generally logical.

However, the odds of the first cell are irrelevant.  The first cell, at some point, existed.  For all the universes and all the places that that first cell didn't exist, I dare say there are few online debates concerning why not.

The fact is the cell came into being.  From one perspective, I could argue the above, that it doesn't matter what the odds are, it happened.  Hell, even my football teams wins from time to time.

If I can understand your argument, it is this:  The first cell (and henceforth Man, the brain, etc) must have been created by a specific creator, because the probability and complexity demand that that is the only answer.

Fine, let's accept that.   Now let's take that to the next logical conclusion.  If a cell requires a more complex being, such as God, to be created, than therefore God must be even more complex than the cell.  So if God is more complex than a cell, there is a even greater demand to find who created God.

So, if God created the cell, who created God?  If you answer is that God just was, or a product of the universe itself, than you fail in your logical test, because regardless of the probability, a cell CAN be created from the basic stuff of the universe under the right conditions.

It perhaps could be argued that the odds of a cell being created are greater than that of God being "just was".

 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 7:41 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jerry, your argument is very good.

Good, but there is a flaw in it.  After consulting my resident biochemist (my wife) I can explain to you why we all have left handed protiens.  This comes from Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 3rd edition, by David Nelson and Michael Cox.

Modern amino acid synthesis follows specific biochemical pathways.  They all start with glucose, which gets converted to glucose 6-phosphate, and then branches depending on what the end product is going to be.  Glucose 6-phosphate is chiral, which means it has a "handedness."  And thus all the amino acids made from that molecule will also have that handedness.  The chirality of the G 6-P (my abbreviation) depends on the enzyme used to make it from glucose.  

What this means is that all protiens are left handed because of one enzyme.  Put that enzyme in our early single celled ancestor, and everything that evolves from that will be left handed.  This doesn't even require that this ancient ancestor be entirely left handed.  It could easily be made of a combination of left and right handed amino acids.  Once that ancestor had that enzyme, though, all its decendants would be left handed.

(Edited by Kronus 5/7/2004 at 8:07 PM).
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:48 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, if God created the cell, who created God?  If you answer is that God just was, or a product of the universe itself, than you fail in your logical test, because regardless of the probability, a cell CAN be created from the basic stuff of the universe under the right conditions.

Ah, but your logic is flawed.  We understand the conditions and variables in nature and in cells... how can we calculate this possibility for something outside the realm of natural?  Do you know the 'nature' of God?  Can you quantify him?

Also, the logical conclusion of IDist is that there is a designer... they never concluded that God is the designer (I would imagine anyway).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:52 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JDM - would you agree with the following statement by Biologist Dr. Gary Parker:

The two basic ingredients in living things is DNA molecules and protein molecules.    DNA is a long string of repeated units called nucleotides or bases.  A protein molecule is a long string of amino acids.  In all forms of life, the sequence of DNA you inherit tells the cells how to line up amino acids to make each of the proteins responsible for structure and function.  So the cell takes a look at the genetic code and says “ok there are these three beads of DNA over here… I’ll line up one amino acid over here...” and continues checking back and forth.  

Well what about that relationship?  Is that what you would expect by time chance and chemistry?  At first you might say so because after all DNA is a string of bases, protein is a string of amino acids, and nothing is more natural then the reaction between acids and bases.  So the evolutionist says “see – if you just wait long enough, bases will start lining up amino acids and life will begin just by time chance and chemistry, no creator is needed”.  Exactly the opposite [is true].  The problem is that natural relationship between bases and acids is the wrong one as far as living things are concerned.

Bases and acids react alright – but when?  At death!  What is [biological] death anyway?  It is the triumph of chemistry over biology.  As soon as molecules in your body begin doing what they want to chemically, you begin to “return to the dust from which you are taken”.  In DNA the bases stick out along the side of the chain.  IN proteins the acids are part of the chain.  If you let DNA and protein do what come naturally, it actually contributes to the aging process and finally the decomposition and destruction of life.

The living relationship, the one we need for living things, is using a series of bases taking 3 at a time to line up a series of amino acid R groups.  Those groups can be acids… but they can also be base!  Single ring, double ring, short chain, long chain, with or without sulfur – they can be almost anything chemically.  The point is this – there is no natural tendency for a series of bases to line up a series of R groups.  That relationship has to be imposed from the outside.  At this fundamental level, then, we have evidence that life on earth is a product of special creation.  

Dr.  Gary Parker (doctorate in biology)
Author of 5 Biology Textbooks  
Creation Scientist


At least speak to the information on Chemistry - what would you say?

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:54 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA base pairs are not your typical "bases" so this point is moot.

Fron T.O.

"It's chemical nonsense. I think it stems from a basic (ha!)
> misunderstanding of what the word "base" means in talking about DNA
> bases. It doesn't mean the same thing as bases when talking about acids
> and bases, i.e. alkaline, pH >7, electron-acceptor, proton-donor bases.
> It just means a single nucleotide. And I suppose that they are slightly
> acidic in water.
>

Purines and pyrimidines are termed nitrogenous bases because of their
potential as proton acceptors.  They are weak bases."




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:57 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
AgnosticBob

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, we shall call him the designer:

Right now we are operating on the assumption that the designer took the trouble to peer down into a warm crevice of gooey matter, snap his fingers, and voila! Cell #1 (I think I'll call him Adam!)

Next logical question:  Why the hell(no pun intended) would the designer wish for such a thing?  Obviously this designer would be all-powerful, correct?  Or a least very, very powerful.

Why, if this powerful being could do such a thing, could he not have simply created the circumstances that would have predicated such an occurance?  What a second, he did!  That's right, the very nature of the universe creates the OPPORTUNITY for little Adam.  Yes, the odds are long, but hey, he's the designer!

You can't say the designer created the universe, then say he didn't do it well enough to create life, so he threw his hand in again.  

Remember, I am not arguing against a designer of the universe, simply against the contention that he would NEED to meddle in a warm puddle in Pangea.

Go back to my first point.  How many other places without cells and the subsequent intellegence are the debating the odds of cells existing?  

We very well may be the only place in the universe to have such a debate.  So what?  That actually proves your long-odds theory, not a designer.

(Edited by AgnosticBob 5/7/2004 at 8:50 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 8:21 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***As you used statistical arguement to reach the conclusion there is a designer, I wanted to hear what it has to say about the designer itself.***

If you think this, my friend, you need reread that entire piece because I'm afraid you're misunderstanding it completely.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 12:18 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***I certainly appreciate you arguments...they seem interesting and generally logical.***

JDB: Thanks, Bob.

***However, the odds of the first cell are irrelevant. The first cell, at some point, existed. For all the universes and all the places that that first cell didn't exist, I dare say there are few online debates concerning why not.***

JDB: You’re losing me here. Either that first cell was designed by something or someone, or it poofed into existence via natural forces. This is the point of my opening post.

***The fact is the cell came into being. From one perspective, I could argue the above, that it doesn't matter what the odds are, it happened. Hell, even my football teams wins from time to time.***

JDB: Yeah, but the question here is how did it happen. Via abiogenesis or intelligent design.

***Fine, let's accept that. Now let's take that to the next logical conclusion. If a cell requires a more complex being, such as God, to be created, than therefore God must be even more complex than the cell. So if God is more complex than a cell, there is a even greater demand to find who created God.***

JDB: I’m not getting your argument here. Where did I mention a god or gods in the above?
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 12:26 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Good, but there is a flaw in it. After consulting my resident biochemist (my wife) I can explain to you why we all have left handed protiens. This comes from Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 3rd edition, by David Nelson and Michael Cox.

Modern amino acid synthesis follows specific biochemical pathways. They all start with glucose, which gets converted to glucose 6-phosphate, and then branches depending on what the end product is going to be. Glucose 6-phosphate is chiral, which means it has a "handedness." And thus all the amino acids made from that molecule will also have that handedness. The chirality of the G 6-P (my abbreviation) depends on the enzyme used to make it from glucose.

What this means is that all protiens are left handed because of one enzyme. Put that enzyme in our early single celled ancestor, and everything that evolves from that will be left handed. This doesn't even require that this ancient ancestor be entirely left handed. It could easily be made of a combination of left and right handed amino acids. Once that ancestor had that enzyme, though, all its decendants would be left handed.***

LOL…One handy wife to have around, Kronus, and a good observation. However it ignores the fact that what we find in nature is a racemized mixture of 50% left handed and 50% right handed, and there is little evidence to suggest it was any different a couple billion years ago. The fact that an enzyme COULD have produced a certain chirality certainly does not extrapolate that one did.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 12:36 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm totally lost in here with many of the posts. How on earth did we ever get from biochemistry to gods, or a God.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 12:39 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 12:36 AM on May 8, 2004 :

LOL…One handy wife to have around, Kronus, and a good observation. However it ignores the fact that what we find in nature is a racemized mixture of 50% left handed and 50% right handed, and there is little evidence to suggest it was any different a couple billion years ago. The fact that an enzyme COULD have produced a certain chirality certainly does not extrapolate that one did.



Yeah, I think I'll keep her.

You missed the point though.  We don't need to extrapolate the existence of the enzyme.  We know it exists, it's in all our cells right now, and is well characterized.  The entire amino acid synethesis pathway is very well understood.  We know that the reason all our amino acids are left handed is because we make them that way.  

The primordial amino acids were almost certainly 50/50 left and right handed, just as they are today in free amino acids.  The first proteins may well have been a mixture of right and left handed amino acids, we'll probably never know for sure.  However, once a cell started synthesising its own amino acids, and using an enzyme with a preferential chirality, all the protiens it make from then on would be left handed.  100% probability.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:39 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  The primordial amino acids were almost certainly 50/50 left and right handed, just as they are today in free amino acids.  The first proteins may well have been a mixture of right and left handed amino acids, we'll probably never know for sure.  However, once a cell started synthesising its own amino acids, and using an enzyme with a preferential chirality, all the protiens it make from then on would be left handed.  100% probability.

Again, you would have to show that can happen in a lab situation - it can't.  No where in observation do we see this happening now.  Either there is a flaw with the uniformitarian principle that what we can observe today holds true for millions of years ago, or evolution could never have started.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:17 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just want to clarify a point that I sort of glossed over.  The amino acid synthesis pathways aren't identical in all creatures.  The "backbone" of it is the same, and it's that backbone that uses the enzyme in question.  Various pathways branch off from the backbone at various points to make specific amino acids.  Most plants and bacteria have the full set of bracnching pathways, and so can synthesize all 20 essential amino acids, whereas most mammals can only make about 10, and must eat the rest.  A minor point, but I wanted to get it out of the way to avoid any future confusion.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:34 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Kronus at 11:34 AM on May 8, 2004 :
I just want to clarify a point that I sort of glossed over.  The amino acid synthesis pathways aren't identical in all creatures.  The "backbone" of it is the same, and it's that backbone that uses the enzyme in question.  Various pathways branch off from the backbone at various points to make specific amino acids.  Most plants and bacteria have the full set of bracnching pathways, and so can synthesize all 20 essential amino acids, whereas most mammals can only make about 10, and must eat the rest.  A minor point, but I wanted to get it out of the way to avoid any future confusion.



That raises an intersting question -

Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders—each with its own physiology?  Why would animals abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction?

Either sex is the result of an historical accident or it is the invention of an intelligent creator.  Although current theories of sexual reproduction try valiantly to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex.

You also avoided my previous statement - if we can never observed this process you have assumed happened (amino acids lining up on their own to form reproducing life), it is a fairly large leap of faith.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:03 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer:
If you think this, my friend, you need reread that entire piece because I'm afraid you're misunderstanding it completely.



I'll take that as a negative response then.

Gup20 wrote: Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders—each with its own physiology?  Why would animals abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction?


When you say sexual reproduction is inefficent, it depends what measure of efficency you are looking to.

Either sex is the result of an historical accident or it is the invention of an intelligent creator.  Although current theories of sexual reproduction try valiantly to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex.


Well, sexual reproduction has prehistoric origins, but I doubt it could have arisen by "accident", unless you care to define what exactly you mean by this term.

Gup20 wrote: You also avoided my previous statement - if we can never observed this process you have assumed happened (amino acids lining up on their own to form reproducing life), it is a fairly large leap of faith.


I thought this was to do with reasoning, not faith?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 12:54 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR: I thought this was to do with reasoning, not faith?

That is my point - if you use logic and observation, you can see that we can't get life to happen naturalisticly even under the most favorable labortatory conditions.  

For example.  Take all the 'primordial' biological molecules you want - create the perfect conditions for life to form - and see if nature and chemistry will begin ligning up amino acids or see if any life (capable of reproducing) forms.  It won't happen.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:43 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20
That is my point - if you use logic and observation, you can see that we can't get life to happen naturalisticly even under the most favorable labortatory conditions.


So far. It may be a long time before such an experiment can be conducted, if ever.

For example.  Take all the 'primordial' biological molecules you want - create the perfect conditions for life to form - and see if nature and chemistry will begin ligning up amino acids or see if any life (capable of reproducing) forms.  It won't happen.


In the lab, probably not. Why? we will never have enough time to conduct such an experiment... it took a long time for life to appear... it took a huge amount of time for that life to become complex.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:54 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***You missed the point though. We don't need to extrapolate the existence of the enzyme. We know it exists, it's in all our cells right now, and is well characterized. The entire amino acid synethesis pathway is very well understood. We know that the reason all our amino acids are left handed is because we make them that way. ***

Very doubtful though, that you were around 2 billion years ago to make some for my little pet protist. ;)

****The primordial amino acids were almost certainly 50/50 left and right handed, just as they are today in free amino acids. The first proteins may well have been a mixture of right and left handed amino acids, we'll probably never know for sure. However, once a cell started synthesising its own amino acids, and using an enzyme with a preferential chirality, all the protiens it make from then on would be left handed. 100% probability.***

But this is the first cell. He’s not making anything. We have to get what we can from nature. We have to logically assume that nature made them then, just as nature makes them now. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:11 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One of us is definately confused here.  Let's assume it's me for the moment.  Here's what I thought your argument was.

We're made up of left handed amino acids. (I know you didn't say that specifically, but it's true and you talk about the protist being left handed, so I figured you knew this and it was in the back of your mind while you were writing)  Your argument implies that this is because the first protist was made of left handed amino acids.  Since free amino acids in nature are 50/50 right and left handed, the odds against just left handed amino acids linking up to form the needed proteins is several million, billion, kajillion against.  So incredibly unlikely that someone must have had a hand in it happening.  Is this not what you're saying?
 


 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:27 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I tracked down Dr. Brewster's paper, (http://www.arky.org/museum/science/life/chemabsu.htm) and I did understand the argument.  His conclusions are, in fact, incorrect.  His logic is fine as far as it goes.  The odds against an all left handed protein forming in nature by the random joining of amino acids is basically nill.  That observation, however, is irrelavant, because that isn't what happened, and no one is claiming that it did.  The protiens in all living things are left handed not because of a hugely bizzare chance, but because we all share the same enzyme which makes left handed amino acids.  Further, his assertion that a protein must be made on entirely left handed amino acids to be usefull is incorrect.  Since Dr. Brewster's PhD isn't in science he can be forgiven for not knowing this.  But the fact of the matter is, if you swap a left handed for a right handed amino acid, you just get a different protein.  It will still share all the properties that proteins in general share, including the ones needed to start life going.  So, the first protist was racemized (because that's what statistics tells us), then at some point later we get an enzyme which creates amino acids of specific chirality, and all the proteins made by that protist's ancestors would then be left handed.

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:01 AM on May 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Dr. Brewster's PhD isn't in science"

Oh boy, another one


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:20 AM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR:  In the lab, probably not. Why? we will never have enough time to conduct such an experiment... it took a long time for life to appear... it took a huge amount of time for that life to become complex.

I am not going to hold this against your or pound it over your head (I could you know).  But simply to say that #1 JDM is right to say it is unverifiable and therefore not 'real' science.

How about if we take a frog - stick it in a blender - and then have those contents be our test goo for our goo-tozoo-toyou experiement.  That way we have ONLY the molecules necessary for a frog - we even have the exact DNA of a frog.  Chance and probabilty is now in our favor for the goo to animate into a living frog.  After all - we have all right molecules there.... we have all the DNA there.... nothing is left to chance.  The mathematical odds are now very much in our favor, aren't they?  But I will still guarentee you that the frog will not re-animate or come alive - neither will any of it's cells come alive or mutate into another life form.  Why?  Primarily because it's disorganized.... but also because the force being exerted on the Biological entity for life goes in opposition to normal chemistry.  Normal chemistry (working in it's normal direction) promotes death and decomposition, not life.  Biology must overcome natural chemistry to sustain life.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:07 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not going to hold this against your or pound it over your head (I could you know).  But simply to say that #1 JDM is right to say it is unverifiable and therefore not 'real' science.


Sorry Gup, simplys are not good enough here. Not a reasonable proposition to demand experimental proof of something that cannot be exactly reproduced in the Lab.

How about if we take a frog - stick it in a blender - and then have those contents be our test goo for our goo-tozoo-toyou experiement.  That way we have ONLY the molecules necessary for a frog - we even have the exact DNA of a frog.  Chance and probabilty is now in our favor for the goo to animate into a living frog.  After all - we have all right molecules there.... we have all the DNA there.... nothing is left to chance.  The mathematical odds are now very much in our favor, aren't they?  But I will still guarentee you that the frog will not re-animate or come alive - neither will any of it's cells come alive or mutate into another life form.  Why?  Primarily because it's disorganized.... but also because the force being exerted on the Biological entity for life goes in opposition to normal chemistry.  Normal chemistry (working in it's normal direction) promotes death and decomposition, not life.  Biology must overcome natural chemistry to sustain life.


It is a pity about your metaphorical frog as you have blended it for no good reason. I hope it was not a rare species.

Why on earth do you think a blended frog could possibly become the same frog again sat there in the beaker in the lab?

I'm intregued to the say the least...


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:58 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus I am intrigued with this enzyme explaination for one handiness in nature.

I have read a number of thoughts on the left-handiness problem before but never have I seen anything but hypothetical solutions.

It seems quite bizarre to me why so many non creationist sites would claim we don't know the answer yet when this enzyme seems to be such a good solution.
For example talkorigins has a brief answer to the problem here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html
But it doesn't even mention this enzyme as a possible solution.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 04:09 AM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Both of the responses in the link you posted seem to be buying in to the assumption that the earliest life forms were left handed, and trying to explain it.  Most of the stuff I found on line seems to do the same thing.  The "trick", if you will, is to realize that the assumption in the question is wrong, and explain that.

Or, with this specific wording: "The 20 amino acids which are used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.", to say, well yes, that's true, now what's the scientific explanation?

 
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 08:30 AM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR: Not a reasonable proposition to demand experimental proof of something that cannot be exactly reproduced in the Lab.

Science is about the observable.  To say something is not observable is to admit that it is assumptive and theoretical.  This has been the primary argument against creationism for many years... that the 'supernatural' cannot be observed and it is therefore not 'real science'.  

However - it is extremely important to point out that evolution is equally unobservable, and would, by the same definition, be considered 'not science' if one were to be objectively honest.  

OR: It is a pity about your metaphorical frog as you have blended it for no good reason. I hope it was not a rare species.

The purpose there is to say that take something that is alrady living and has all the right components for life to occur.  Use the exact elements that make up that creature as your 'primordial ooze'.  You couldn't get a better set of slime - this one has all the things necessary for life already generally in the right sequences an everything already - we have greatly reduced the factors of time and chance haven't we?  all the 'work' is done, all that is remaining is for the goo to come to life!  Would any life result from the goo?  Any life in any form?  No, it wouldn't.  Why?  Because chemistry doesn't work that way.  The NATURAL way chemistry would act on that goo is to break it down and decompose it further into dead, inert matter.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:46 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

right.  it would be broken down into simpler organic chemicals and molecules.  Leave those sitting around for a long time in the right conditions and you might have something.  Gup, if you cut your finger off, would you grow a new one?  Then why would we expect a blended frog to reassemble itself, or complex cells which only function in an organized system to carry on functioningas seperate entities?
Boys and girls, this is called a straw man


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:40 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course, TQ, my point was that the frog WOULDN'T re-animate, nor would we expect it to... nor would we expect ANY form of living matter to result from such a concoction of goo.  Yet evolutionists claim that a much less organized, much less 'life specific' bowl of goo did just that.  

You don't truely believe it can happen and neither do I.  Yet, you are more than willing to make the jump to evolution regardless of the impossibility for life to even begin on it's own.  

I guess that makes you intellectually dishonest.  Or perhaps it just means you believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence - perhaps is just means you are a person of faith.  (wink wink, nod nod)
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:24 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, last response, as after this I have to go beat my head against a wall for a while (you know, to replace debating with you).
Of course, TQ, my point was that the frog WOULDN'T re-animate, nor would we expect it to

1 point for gup!

nor would we expect ANY form of living matter to result from such a concoction of goo.

Ooo... 1/2 point for this one.

Yet evolutionists claim that a much less organized, much less 'life specific' bowl of goo did just that.  

Negative points for this one:
1)"Evolutionists" do not claim any such thing.  Mainly because there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", and because abiogenesis (which is what you are attempting to erect a straw man of) is not a part of the ToE (as I've explained to you too many times to count.  Do you ever read what is posted here?  Or do you just assume we're wrong and bull ahead with the same tired ignorant arguments?)

2)Biologists researching abiogenesis in no way think that a full blown cell sprung up and decided to evolve, so the idea that a frog cell would spontaneously evolve when the frog is dead is idiotic to say the least.


You don't truely believe it can happen and neither do I

No?  Were you reading my diary again gup?  No?  Then you may want to refrain from telling me what I believe.  The fact is that there are huge strides being made in the field of abiogenesis.  For example, take a look at the newest issue of discover magazine.  I found it pretty interesting.

I guess that makes you intellectually dishonest

See, I'd be offended if this came from someone who demonstrated integrity.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:05 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, then - we can guaranty that Evolution never happened... because it never started.  If you say that Evolution has nothing to do with 'abiogenesis' and they are somehow separate, then perhaps abiogenesis never happend.  Perhaps the God created every creature and living cell distinctly and discreetly.  Evolution therefore is a farce except for speciation from the original kinds.  (micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution).  

If 'evolution' does not depend or deal with the beggining or origin of life, we can arbitrarily choose any beginning or origin in we like, right?

Well I choose creation of distinct kinds as the origin.  Hrm... that means evolution doesn't work in the right direction.  Oh well - evolution must be wrong.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:59 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And here we have a demonstration of what happens when people who have no cognizant reasoning abilities are allowed access to the net.

Well, then - we can guaranty that Evolution never happened... because it never started.

I like bubble gum.  There, I've made as valid a point as gup.

If you say that Evolution has nothing to do with 'abiogenesis' and they are somehow separate, then perhaps abiogenesis never happend.

Maybe.

Perhaps the God created every creature and living cell distinctly and discreetly.

See, now here's where you always get mixed up. "If A is true, then Z must be true!".  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  Abiogenesis has so far not been demonstrated, but there are huge advances.  Even if god did create that first life form, the fact remains that every little bit of evidence supports the ToE, namely, all life shares a common ancestor.

If 'evolution' does not depend or deal with the beggining or origin of life, we can arbitrarily choose any beginning or origin in we like, right?

Sure.  I choose pink alien bunnies personally.  (Hey, I like bunnies!)

Well I choose creation of distinct kinds as the origin.

Bully for you.  At least my "alien pink bunnies" theory does not dismiss every single shred of evidence collected by every branch of life science, plus most of the physical sciences.

Hmm, anyone want to join my "Church of the Holy Pink Bunny from Outer Space?"  We'll call it Chopbos for short, and I get to be high priest!  Yippee, tax exempt status, here I come!

(Edited by TQ 5/12/2004 at 7:22 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:19 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ:  ToE, namely, all life shares a common ancestor.

Lets assume for a minute that what you say is true at face value.  

If you take a look at german-made guns from WWII, you can see that many of them have common design features.  One can usually take a look at a WWII era weapon and tell right away if it's an American weapon or a German weapon.  Why?  Similar design aspects.  

So then, if God created all life on earth, couldn't it be that they have similarities because they were designed by the same designer?


TQ: Even if god did create that first life form, the fact remains that every little bit of evidence supports the ToE, namely, all life shares a common ancestor.

I reject that arguement.  It has no basis in common sense or reason.  If God was big enough to create the entire universe... the sun, moon, stars, all the planets... time, light, energy, matter - I think he was big enough to create human beings and distinct discreet animals.  

The argument here is that God created everything the way he said he did in the Bible EXCEPT for life.  He decided to create a bowl or primordial soup and let time and chance have it's way with it?  

If God exists... and he is able to create the universe... then I would say he is big enough to create life fully in the way He described in the Bible.

TQ: Sure.  I choose pink alien bunnies personally.

Why am I not surprised?  Good luck with that, man.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:45 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The above post is an xample of:
1) argument from incredulity
2) a priori assumptions
3) bad analogies
4) picking and choosing which facts you want to use in an argument, rather than adressing all evidence.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:50 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The above is an example of:

1)the lack of any sort of an argument
2)the lack of any sort of a point
3)the lack of any sort of a discussion
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:04 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The above is an example of:

1)the lack of any sort of an argument
2)the lack of any sort of a point
3)the lack of any sort of a discussion

That explains why you were able to grasp it so quickly.  After all, it mirrors most of your posts.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:17 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20
TQ:  ToE, namely, all life shares a common ancestor.

Lets assume for a minute that what you say is true at face value.  

If you take a look at german-made guns from WWII, you can see that many of them have common design features.  One can usually take a look at a WWII era weapon and tell right away if it's an American weapon or a German weapon.  Why?  Similar design aspects.


Errr... really?

For example, using your rationale, the Japanese made Ho-103 12.7mm MG would end up being classified as a US weapon. This is because it was a copy of the US Browning M2 0.50 calibre MG with several adaptations.

Actually, a classification of WW2 weapon designs based on function and features would tend to group weapons according to their calibre and type, not their country of origin.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/17/2004 at 1:15 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 06:16 AM on May 17, 2004 | IP
apathy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 7:52 PM on May 7, 2004 :
So, if God created the cell, who created God?  If you answer is that God just was, or a product of the universe itself, than you fail in your logical test, because regardless of the probability, a cell CAN be created from the basic stuff of the universe under the right conditions.

Ah, but your logic is flawed.  We understand the conditions and variables in nature and in cells... how can we calculate this possibility for something outside the realm of natural?  Do you know the 'nature' of God?  Can you quantify him?

Also, the logical conclusion of IDist is that there is a designer... they never concluded that God is the designer (I would imagine anyway).



WHAT THE $%*#?!?!?!

First of all, we do NOT know all the variables and conditions in nature or the cell.

The whole argument AGAINST ID is what you just said. How in the sam hill are we ever going to be able to test for the existence of a designer when that designer is supposed to be outside the realm of the physical? That's why ID is NOT science. That's why to bring up the notion of a designer/creator demands some sort of POSITIVE evidence, of which there is NONE.

You just made the case AGAINST creationist "science" and intellegent design.

 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:18 PM on June 13, 2004 | IP
apathy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The two basic ingredients in living things is DNA molecules and protein molecules.    DNA is a long string of repeated units called nucleotides or bases.  A protein molecule is a long string of amino acids.  In all forms of life, the sequence of DNA you inherit tells the cells how to line up amino acids to make each of the proteins responsible for structure and function.  So the cell takes a look at the genetic code and says “ok there are these three beads of DNA over here… I’ll line up one amino acid over here...” and continues checking back and forth.  

Well what about that relationship?  Is that what you would expect by time chance and chemistry?  At first you might say so because after all DNA is a string of bases, protein is a string of amino acids, and nothing is more natural then the reaction between acids and bases.  So the evolutionist says “see – if you just wait long enough, bases will start lining up amino acids and life will begin just by time chance and chemistry, no creator is needed”.  Exactly the opposite [is true].  The problem is that natural relationship between bases and acids is the wrong one as far as living things are concerned.

Bases and acids react alright – but when?  At death!  What is [biological] death anyway?  It is the triumph of chemistry over biology.  As soon as molecules in your body begin doing what they want to chemically, you begin to “return to the dust from which you are taken”.  In DNA the bases stick out along the side of the chain.  IN proteins the acids are part of the chain.  If you let DNA and protein do what come naturally, it actually contributes to the aging process and finally the decomposition and destruction of life.

The living relationship, the one we need for living things, is using a series of bases taking 3 at a time to line up a series of amino acid R groups.  Those groups can be acids… but they can also be base!  Single ring, double ring, short chain, long chain, with or without sulfur – they can be almost anything chemically.  The point is this – there is no natural tendency for a series of bases to line up a series of R groups.  That relationship has to be imposed from the outside.  At this fundamental level, then, we have evidence that life on earth is a product of special creation.  

---

I don't know where this guy got his PhD, but this passage is pure SH*T. It makes no sense whatsoever and shows a definite lack of knowledge of chemistry, biology, the nature of DNA, proteins, and cellular machinery, all of which would be required for a PhD in biology.

Talking about DNA as a base, reacting directly with proteins as an acid has nothing to do with anything in the cell.

DNA and proteins are indeed 2 ingredients essential to life. There's also RNA, lipids, nucleic acid phosphates (ATP, etc), sugars, water, salts, etc. All are necessary.

That doesn't mean that wham, all of a sudden, the pieces were all in place by a random act of (your favorite origin hypothesis here), but most likely the intricate clockwork was built on a simpler mechanism, which was built on another simpler still.

Maybe this is something similar to the simple mechaism that started it all here on earth:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040426/040426-5.html

If we want to talk about intellegent design, here is a good place:
http://www.che.caltech.edu/groups/fha/Enzyme/directed.html
http://www.che.caltech.edu/groups/fha/


 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:31 PM on June 13, 2004 | IP
apathy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"

That raises an intersting question -

Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders—each with its own physiology?  Why would animals abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction?
"


Sexual reproduction allows for more genetic diversity and robustness toward passing down weaknesses. Of course, it could lead sometimes to weakness (hemophilia, diabetes, etc.) but overall the end result of sexual reproduction is that of a more diverse, and consequently more robust, genome.

---
'
Either sex is the result of an historical accident or it is the invention of an intelligent creator.  Although current theories of sexual reproduction try valiantly to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex.

---

You also avoided my previous statement - if we can never observed this process you have assumed happened (amino acids lining up on their own to form reproducing life), it is a fairly large leap of faith.  


nobody assumes what you are saying ( i mean nobody that does that kind of science for a living)

MAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOUR QUOTE GOT SO MIXED UP IN WHAT I TYPED, O WELL




(Edited by apathy 6/13/2004 at 7:44 PM).

(Edited by apathy 6/13/2004 at 7:56 PM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:37 PM on June 13, 2004 | IP
apathy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To the folks that said that ToE depends on all of life sharing ONE common ancestor:

Is this true?
If so, why would that be necessary to explain what we see?
Perhaps the way life is now is a result of a previous convergence of two or more "far from equilibrium" processes? a coupling, if you will.
We don't know, so we can't say that there must have been ONE primodial ancestral life form.

Anyway, keep up the debate!
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:51 PM on June 13, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know if anyone said there was only one ancestor.  I would find it pretty strange if life only arose in one form.  Then again, there's always the possibility that numerous early life forms arose, and the life around us now is descended from the one kind that was better adapted.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:26 PM on June 13, 2004 | IP
Javen

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, if God created the cell, who created God?  If you answer is that God just was, or a product of the universe itself, than you fail in your logical test, because regardless of the probability, a cell CAN be created from the basic stuff of the universe under the right conditions.

In ontology, we say beings that are infinite have the power to exist within themselfs. To a large exent you could be misunderstanding the law of causility. The law of causility doesn't say "everything must have a cause" but rather that "all causes must produce a effect" an in reverse "all effects must have a cause". A being existing in a state lacking any change and having always been does not in any way voilate this law. But given the law of causity; Ex nihilo nihil fit-- "out of nothing, nothing can come."  If there was ever truly nothing; our most fundamental grasp on knowledge demands that there be nothing to this day. So once again, the idea of a "infinite being" is not only logical possible but also ontologically necessary.

Now for a large part i'm suprized no one brought this up; nothing happens by probility. It's funny but evolution has relativly nothing to do with creatisum; and yet even evolutions believe in it. The believe that at one point the universe was formed; by what force? what caused it? whatever they attribute that to is the creator. In science nothing just happens; everything has a cause.... sense life did happen, it was caused. Now the real heart of this debate is to discover what "caused life"; something probility does nothing to explain. Unless one wants to argue that all things lack a cause and there is a divine element of chaos that we call "randomness"; hence something "just happened". Saying you don't know is one thing but i see no evidance in the known universe that says a effect can lack a cause. That a "change of state, identify" can happen without a reason (cause).


-------
a Law cannot exist without a law giver. There is no right or wrong without God."The first thing that is necessary for ethics to be meaingful, said Kant, is justice. If crime ultimately pays then there is no practical reason to be virtuous." (-R.C. Sproul) To the self serving, yet rational mind; "if there is no God then let us eat, drink, and plumage for we all die." ... all who resent the living God completely undermind the value of life itself.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 01:23 AM on June 30, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I belive its the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg???


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 9:30 PM on July 10, 2004 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Kronus at 7:48 PM on May 7, 2004 :


What this means is that all protiens are left handed because of one enzyme.  Put that enzyme in our early single celled ancestor, and everything that evolves from that will be left handed.  This doesn't even require that this ancient ancestor be entirely left handed.  It could easily be made of a combination of left and right handed amino acids.  Once that ancestor had that enzyme, though, all its decendants would be left handed.

This is called a just so story. It is absurd . When you die all of your cells return to an even distribution. If one changes they all change-you die. All of the experiments have produced an exact mix -50-50. Therefore we have have empirical evidence this is false.

The real question which is avoided is how did the cell come to life? Overlooking the absurd probability of just the right combination of chemicals coming together it still has to come to life.
Matter would have to create intelligence.
That is absurd.
If you refuse to talk about origins-the first cell coming to life it is pointless to discuss evolution. Nothing remains nothing.
If you don't discuss origin of the first cell you don't trust your own theory and you lose the debate by default.
That should tell you something.
It means you are probably wrong.







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:40 PM on April 4, 2005 | IP
pasha

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all evolution is happenign every singe day, even as you sit in your chair right now. Many people ask 'if evolution is true then why isn't it happening today?"
One example is of Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit flies, in 1909 he had only one species of fruit flies the "wild type"(all had red eyes) which showed no variants in it and after isolating a  population of the wild type and breeding them for a year he found one variant, a fruit fly with white eyes. after a short time period he found other mutations(SLIGHLY different from other fruit flies, genetically), 85 mutations to be more precice, and the genes of these fruit flies were passed from generation to generation(they will alway exist and may or may not be expressed in their children). Mutations are occurences that happen in nature and over a long period of time give rise to new species.  To put it in simpler and more coherent words, " The demonstration of a spontaneous, inheritable alteration in a gene had consequences far beyond the study of drosphilia(fruit fly) genetics. It suggested a mechanism for the origin of VARIATION that exists within POPULATIONS(such as humans, mice, flies, bacteria and even viruses)--evidence for a vital link in the theory of evolution. If VARIANTS of genes could arise spontaneously, then isolated populations could become GENETICALLY DIFFERENT from one another und ULTIMATELY(SOmetimes in millions of years) give rise to new species."(Cell and Molecular Biology. Gerald Karp. Fourth Edition)
Fruit flies mature in 10 days(to a sexually mature adult)and a fruit fly can produce 1000 eggs withing a lifetime, thats why, with such a population that lives, breeds and dies so quickly, variations can be followed VERY precisely(in the example a bove it took one year to find 85 mutations). Ladies and gentleman, in the following sentce I present to you evolution in all its glory: If enough of these mutations happen within a fruit fly population you can produce a new strain of fruit flies(that look different) that won't even be able to breed and produce offspring with the original fruit flies(wild type) but only with the new strain! Hence, a NEW SPECIES now exists. For mammals such as apes or whales etc. such changes are not as obvious(because we live on average 70-100 years and  produce a few offspring compared to fruit flies!) and the most remarkable or striking evidence of  change come from skeletons of early humans or for early whales(check out the evolution line for whales, its pretty amazing to know what anymal they evolved from).
By the way, fruit fly reaserch is IMMENSE today compared to 1909 and so is reaserch on other animals, so check out some papers or articles online about evolution in progress, evolution is a lot more complex than what I have explained here, I just gave you a run down of the basics. If you are wondering yes, there is an explenation of how and why mutations occur, but understanding these explenation will mean taking university biology, genetics and chemistry courses.

If you want an up to date example of evolution happening everyday(other than some guys' fruit flies in 1909) then let me tell you, it would be impossible to keep AIDS patiens alive today without knowing the theory of evolution. AIDS patients take alot of drugs wich help kill the AIDS virus, but the virus keeps adapting to drugs and ultimately becomes resistant to it, how? The virus EVOLVES!!! Lets say there is a certain virus living in your body, most of the viruses that are in your body are identical copies of one another and a few mutations(variations) of the same virus exist within that population. One drug may kill off a large population of the virus that exists in your body but might not kill, lets say 1%, of of the HIV virus. This 1% is resistand to a certain drug and thus replicates numerously and once again causes infection now we have a new population of the the HIV virus, but its resistand to one type of drug(and genetically different) so you can't use it anymore. If you try another drug, the same thing will happen, a small percentage of varients will survive and give rise to a new, drug resistand virus.

 Some people believe that evolution dictates superiority and inferiority different creatures. That is not true, according to evolution a human being is no more up the ladder than an elephant or a kangaroo, all three of these species are equally complex(biologically). The only thing that seperates us is that we are probably one of of the few species that can interact with each other, we have complex brain(allowing language, which gives us an advantage over other animals) and modify matter around us(Me..made...FIRE!)and we have a complex social structure. All in all, we are still animals, like it or not, you gotta eat, sleep, when its a hot day you will sweat, you have red blood running through your veins(hopefully) like other mammals and most importanly most of us will pass on our genes to propagate the human race, no matter what.
I read in an earlier post something that I find interesting. Anyone who proves that evolutionary theory if fundamentaly flawed, will DEFNINETELY win the nobel prize! If evolution if flawed, so is modern genetics, if thats flawed then so is basic chemistry, if thats flawed, so is modern physics, if thats flawed, so is mathematics!!

Evolution is also about natural selection, Hypothetically: If the earth was scorched today and if the seas would boil(for some reason), 99.999 percent of creatures would die, including all people, the only things left alive would be thermophiles(heat loving bacteria) and the would "win" the race to survival because they would survive to pass on their genes whereas the rest of us would be floating dust.  The modern evolutionary theory is complex, very complex and its based on facts, it is something that you have to study in University before you can comprehend(high school stuff, barely SCRATHCES the surface and in my opinion its inadequately taught in the class room, it should be taught more coherently so that student can understand what it is) you cant pass judgement on it based on preconceptions, modern medicine wouldn't be where it is today and ironically, without the theory of evolution most of you(I am sure) wouldn't be here debating!

 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:10 PM on April 10, 2005 | IP
ken

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is this specific part of evolution I find controversy, and it is about the "process" and not the "product" of evolution although they are correlated somehow.
evolution proceed through non-random selection and a random mutation of a species in a gradual speed.
However, that probably means that a species completely without an eye first happen to develop a small part of an eye by CHANCE,
And according to natural selection, species which holds beneficial parts will survive and pass on their genes to their offspring,
But the strange thing is that a species probably will first develop a very small part of an eye, like say 1% or 2% or even less of the full eye through random mutation, then what’s the difference between 1% or 2% of an eye compared to 0% of an eye such that it is beneficial ENOUGH to be selected?

Surely 1% of an eye is nothing much beneficial unless it starts of at least say 30% of an eye, but could such sudden leap be possible? And how it took place? Furthermore, if it’s through RANDOM MUTATION, it will have to wait like forever for a 1% eye to develop into 2% of an eye because it is simply by chance that the first 1% of an eye developed and therefore have to wait for chance again to develop the second 1% to make 2%(like throwing a few dice and geting all 6). If the mutations are not random, working towards a fully developed eye then it really seems like it was “known” before hand that a fully developed eye will be very beneficial.

I post this question not to go against the theory of evolution, but to just simply share my opinion and hopefully someone may have a good reply.



-------
ysmanxxxx
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 2:49 PM on April 13, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.