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
     Evolution a non-random process

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One theme that Creationists are constantly bringing up is that evolution is a random process.  This, of course, is incorrect.  Evolution is a driven process.  It is driven by Natural Selection, for one thing.

Evolution does have elements of randomness involved in the process, such as mutations to DNA.  Random events such as natural disasters (mass volcanism, global climate change, asteroid impacts, etc) can have profound affects on the path of evolution.  If something didn't happen to cause the non-avian dinosaurs to be wiped out, mammaliam evolution probably wouldn't have occurred as it did, and we (humans) probably wouldn't be here today.  So there is definitely an element of chance involved in evolution.

However, evolution is not a random process.  Among other things, it is driven by Natural Selection.  If an ecological niche opens up evolution drives the process of organisms filling that niche.  

This is what happened when the dinosaurs became extinct.  There was a rapid expansion and evolution of mammals over the next several millions of years, and mammals have continued to evolve ever since over the past 65 million years.  Evolution allowed them to fill the vacant ecological niches once dominated by dinosaurs.

Evolution is a driven process, but where it will lead to is somewhat up to chance - no doubt about that.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:22 PM on September 2, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,

I was going to start a similar post but I'm at work right now and couldn't get to it right away.  
And you did a good job of covering the subject.  Yes, evolution is NOT random.  Selection is the opposite of randomness and nature is selecting those organisms that will survive.  It is unintelligently selecting them, I might add.  
This is a pretty basic concept, I don't understand why some people can't grasp it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:30 PM on September 2, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Futile Orion.

The chance that you'll actually get a creationist to educate themselves is as likely that we'll discover cold fusion tomorrow.

If a creationist actually educates themselves, then they cease to be a creationist.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:46 AM on September 4, 2008 | IP
knightofchrist

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay I have a question, is this stereotype that creationists are uneducated stemming from the scopes trial. Second I believe natural selection is true but evolution states life sprung from a random process and not necessarily that it remained an entirely random process.


-------
If evolution is correct then our minds are the result of random chemical reactions then how can we trust them?
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 6:17 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from knightofchrist at 6:17 PM on September 17, 2008 :
Okay I have a question, is this stereotype that creationists are uneducated stemming from the scopes trial.


I doubt it. The scopes trial generally isn't brought up by anyone these days. The stereotype of creationists as ignorant, uneducated folks comes from their arguments, their sheer lack of any knowledge about evolution or anything science related and their reliance on known lies. Some are worse then others. The serial creationists who get refuted and spam the same arguments elsewhere are the worst.

Second I believe natural selection is true but evolution states life sprung from a random process and not necessarily that it remained an entirely random process.


Last I checked, evolution doesn't say anything about how life arose. That would be abiognesis and depending on which 'theory' within abiogenesis you believe it, life's rise could be random or not random.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:08 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Second I believe natural selection is true but evolution states life sprung from a random process and not necessarily that it remained an entirely random process.


I think there were elements of randomness involved in abiogenesis.  However, because environmental conditions on the primordial earth were favorable for life forming - it formed.  Given another earth-like planet with similar conditions, I think life has a good chance of forming there too.  The main reason I believe this is by looking at the time-line it took for life to take hold.

From the mainstream science viewpoint the earth is about 4.6-4.7 billion years old.  The earliest sign of life in the fossil record come from stromatolites.  These fossils were formed by prokaryotic cyanobacteria - photosynthetic bacteria - dating back 3.5 billion years ago.  These bacteria were probably responsible for oxygenating our oceans, and later the atmosphere, leading to further evolutionary development.  I have a couple of cool stromatolite spheres in my rock collection.

Anyway, figuring that it took some time for the earth to cool down and for meteoric bombardment to decrease, life established a foothold on earth fairly quickly.  This implies that, given the right conditions, life will develop.

Looking at research, beginning with the famous Stanley-Urey experiment in 1953, we can see compelling laboratory results that show that organic building blocks are easily created given the right conditions - water vapor, methane, CO2, hydrogen, iron, etc - and an energy source.

So I think than the chances of life forming is not an improbable event as some creationists would say it is.  In fact, I would say that abiogenesis has an excellent chance of occuring given the right conditions.  In that respect, life is not random, life is a near  certainty  I think there are many, many planets within our galaxy alone that probably have life of some form on them.  Not necessarily advanced intelligent life on the caliber of Homo sapiens - I suspect that is pretty rare.  But I think there are plenty of planets that harbor life.  And we may be able to detect them within our lifetimes.

That's my guess.  But since we only know of one place where life did take place, we have no other examples to compare it with.

What do you other guys think?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:51 AM on September 18, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from knightofchrist at 6:17 PM on September 17, 2008 :
Okay I have a question, is this stereotype that creationists are uneducated stemming from the scopes trial.

Well as I have yet to meet an intelligent Creationist(probably because thinking for yourselves would destroy the entire basis of your belief) I doubt the Scopes trial has too much to do with it.





-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 4:06 PM on October 13, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure if i had ever heard of that trial.

In Argentina we have very few creationists. And i don't know if any of them can use a computer.

Not only people laugh at them, but they laugh at me for trying to reason with them.

I assure you i'm not trying to sound offensive. We have LOTS of ignorant people with other superstitions different than that about creation.

They believe that envy can harm you. So they put a red ribbon around their babies' wrist, to prevent harm from envy (no matter how ugly their baby is).

They believe in the zodiac too.

Edit: My point was that the stereotype is worldwide, and has nothing to do with that trial.


(Edited by wisp 10/14/2008 at 01:07 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:06 AM on October 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

I'm not sure if i had ever heard of that
trial.


The infamous Scopes "monkey" trial...Here's what wikipedia has to say about it:
ScopesMonkeyTrial

"The "Scopes Trial" (Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (Tenn. 1925), often called the "Scopes Monkey Trial") was an American legal case that tested the Butler Act, which made it unlawful, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, "to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." The case was a critical turning point in the United States' creation-evolution controversy.

John Scopes, a high school teacher, was charged on May 5, 1925 with teaching evolution from a chapter in a textbook which showed ideas developed from those set out in Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. The trial pitted two of the preeminent legal minds of the time against one another. Three-time presidential candidate, Congressman and former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan headed up the prosecution, while prominent trial attorney Clarence Darrow spoke for the defense.[1] The famous trial was made infamous by the fictionalized accounts given in the 1955 play Inherit the Wind, the 1960 Hollywood motion picture and the 1965, 1988 and 1999 television films of the same name."

I'm not sure how accurate the movie "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracy was, but I enjoyed it.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:41 AM on October 14, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I appreciate the intention, Demon38.

I read that article before posting (notwithstanding the fact that i'm still not sure if i HAD ever heard of that trial).

Which movie did you watch? Oh, wait... Spencer Tracy, so the 1960.

Here in Argentina the relation between religion and the state never got too much attention.

Our Constitución states that “Es Estado Federal sostiene el culto católico, apostólico y romano”, which is pretty shameful, but doesn't have a real relevance.

You can also find big crucifixes in our courts of law, which is also pretty shameful.

God is mentioned here and there, but just to add drama. No passage of the Bible is ever quoted.

The last shameful intervention that church had in Argentina was to put pressure and banning Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ in 1996.

Nobody liked it. It added distrust towards the church (which i gladly welcome). Well, that along with the child molesting members of the church.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:42 AM on October 14, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay I concede that natural selection is a driven process but you even stated yourself that DNA mutation is a random process and that's what actually allows a species to change so although adaption is selective mutation and species change is not.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 9:51 PM on December 21, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay I concede that natural selection is a driven process but you even stated yourself that DNA mutation is a random process and that's what actually allows a species to change so although adaption is selective mutation and species change is not.

What's your point?  DNA mutation is random but by itself evolution wouldn't work.  Non- random, unintelligent natural selection is needed to produce new, successful species.
Therefore, evolution is NOT random.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:17 AM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mutation is what brings about species change and mutation itself is random thats what I'm stating now natural selection might decide which creatures evolve but mutation is the process itself. What I'm stating is to actually create a new species requires the completely random and mostly harmful process of mutation.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 12:51 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
tonechild

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 12:51 PM on December 22, 2008 :
Mutation is what brings about species change and mutation itself is random thats what I'm stating now natural selection might decide which creatures evolve but mutation is the process itself. What I'm stating is to actually create a new species requires the completely random and mostly harmful process of mutation.


Mutations are very common and happen with every new generation on every species every day.  Most mutations are benign or harmless.    If mutations never occured, then life would never have a chance.  Because mutations occur at the molecular level, it actually gives life an ADVANTAGE.  Mutations are not only mostly harmless, but are mandatory for survival of life itself.

Environments are by far more harmful than mutations.  It is not the mutation that dictates whether a species survives, but it's environment.  Therefore, the species that are capable of adapting to a new environment survive while the others go extinct.

The only harmful mutation that exists is a mutation that caues a creature to be unable to survive or reproduce.  So many mutations can be benign or subtle, like having eyes that are slightly more sensitive to light, or tougher or weaker skin, or less or more hair, or an ability to jump an inch higher or less, or an ability to have more endurance or less endurance, more speed or less speed, longer nails or shorter nails, sharper teeth or less sharp teeth, changes in metabolism, changes in protein synthesis, changes in senses, etc, creating an advantage or disadvantage or absolutely nothing depending on the environment.  

Mutations are random, but not in the sense of growing a 3rd leg, or a 3rd eye out of the blue!  More so, they can be [very subtle and unseen by the naked eye.   Scientifically speaking, a harmful mutation is one that does not allow the creature to survive one generation. Because a creatures environment dictates it's survival, Evolution itself is not a random process at all.

(Edited by tonechild 12/22/2008 at 2:29 PM).
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 1:42 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually most scientists know that the majority of mutations are in essence harmful or at least according to these websites:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Those-Elusive-Beneficial-Mutations&id=596885

http://www.makgene.com/index.cfm?fa=content.display&content_id=27


 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 8:52 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually most scientists know that the majority of mutations are in essence harmful or at least according to these websites:

Actually, this is untrue.  The web sites you site don't understand science and you would be stupid to use them to support your claims.

From here:
Neutral1
"most mutations are neutral; they either make no change in the expression of any gene, or the changes made do not affect the function of any gene product. "

And from here:
Neutral2

"The early geneticists thought all mutations were harmful. They studied these "errors" in genes in the hope that they would help them understand the way genes normally work. Remember that they had no knowledge of what genes were made of, or how they worked chemically. It turns out that they were wrong. Most mutations are silent (cause no real change) or neutral (cause a change that doesn't make any real difference); of those that do make a difference, most are harmful (at least in the organism's current circumstances), but a small percentage simply cause an alteration in function, or may even provide an advantage. Also, whether a mutation is harmful or not is sometimes situational — a change which is harmful in some situations may actually be beneficial in others."

So the claim that most mutations are harmful has been disproven, if you were honest, you would stop making this claim.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:51 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No matter what they say, if a mutation does something that matters it will more often than not (far more often) be harmful than beneficial.

I think it would be like throwing little rocks to a sculpture. Some parts of it are of very little importance.

It would be very hard to improve an important and delicate part of the sculpture by throwing a stone at it.

But if the sculptures produce offspring and the better ones live, and the worse die, then i would be pushing the analogy. LOL



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:27 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:51 PM on December 22, 2008 :
Actually most scientists know that the majority of mutations are in essence harmful or at least according to these websites:

Actually, this is untrue.  The web sites you site don't understand science and you would be stupid to use them to support your claims.

From here:
Neutral1
"most mutations are neutral; they either make no change in the expression of any gene, or the changes made do not affect the function of any gene product. "


The website itself stated that although most mutations are neutral out of those that aren't most are harmful so most mutations either have no significant change or a harmful one.





(Edited by oct08 12/23/2008 at 3:39 PM).
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:29 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oct08, you quoted, but forgot to reply.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:30 AM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 11:29 PM on December 22, 2008 :

The website itself stated that although most mutations are neutral out of those that aren't most are harmful so most mutations either have no significant change or a harmful one.



Most is not the same as all.  The beneficial mutations will provide an advantage, be positively selected, and spread through the population.  The harmful will be selected against.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:59 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed.

http://alteredqualia.com/visualization/evolve/

Check that page. Leave it open for some time. Maybe that will clarify our point.

Random polygons form a random image with an algorithm that selects images that look more like the Mona Lisa.

MOST mutations will make it look LESS like the Mona Lisa. And yet... Well, i won't tell you how it ends.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:47 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The website itself stated that although most mutations are neutral out of those that aren't most are harmful so most mutations either have no significant change or a harmful one.

Yes, but that's NOT what you said.  Here, let me quote you:
"Actually most scientists know that the majority of mutations are in essence harmful or at least according to these websites: "

So your statement is wrong, most scientists DON'T know (or claim) the majority of mutations are harmful.

It also appears you don't understand harmful, beneficial and neutral mutations.  A mutation is harmful, beneficial or neutral in regards to fitness.  A mutation to an organism in one environment might be beneficial but in a different environment it might be harmful.  Neutral mutations that become fixed in a population might later become beneficial or harmful.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:17 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if most aren't harmful statistically speaking it is impossible for evolution to have succesfully occured throughout the earth's time frame. And this isn't my own guess this was agreed on by the mathematicians present at the the evolution conventions in 1980 and I believe the other one was in the 60's.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:29 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even if most aren't harmful statistically speaking it is impossible for evolution to have succesfully occured throughout the earth's time frame.

Show us the statistics or withdraw the claim.  Not just the quote by some creatioist dupe, but the actual mathematical forumula that disproves evolution!  Or els withdraw the claim!

And this isn't my own guess this was agreed on by the mathematicians present at the the evolution conventions in 1980 and I believe the other one was in the 60's.

Yeah, right!  This is absolutely not true!  And I can prove it's not true because you can't provide the actual formula!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:26 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This occured at the 1966 convention in Philadelphia

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

DNA is not the result of an accident. The mathematical possibilities that all this intertwining of codes and processors could come together by accident—is totally impossible. That is what the experts tell us.

For example, we are told that the information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as the enzyme it controls. Yet just one medium-sized protein will consist of about 300 amino acids! That protein was made by a DNA gene, which would have to have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a single DNA chain, one with 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. —4^1000 = 1.15•10^602  that is 1 followed by 602 zeros, which is more than billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions … the amount of electrons in the whole universe.


 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 11:38 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 11:38 PM on December 23, 2008 :

For example, we are told that the information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as the enzyme it controls. Yet just one medium-sized protein will consist of about 300 amino acids! That protein was made by a DNA gene, which would have to have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a single DNA chain, one with 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. —4^1000 = 1.15•10^602  that is 1 followed by 602 zeros, which is more than billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions … the amount of electrons in the whole universe.


What about thermal proteins?  They don't require any DNA or RNA to form.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:52 PM on December 23, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps but for the most part it is quite ulikely for proteins to have existed before DNA.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 12:03 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 12:03 AM on December 24, 2008 :
Perhaps but for the most part it is quite ulikely for proteins to have existed before DNA.


Why?  I once saw a demonstration of their formation from a mixture of amino acids poured on a piece of hot lava.  It's the basis for Fox's protocells.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:06 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't see how that refutes my statement after all their is DNA in us and for that to have evolved seems far to unlikely even if some proteins do not require it.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 12:07 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your original statement was that proteins can't form without DNA.  That's wrong.

Suppose life started with peptide nucleic acids instead of DNA or RNA.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:10 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA is not the result of an accident. The mathematical possibilities that all this intertwining of codes and processors could come together by accident—is totally impossible. That is what the experts tell
us.


Not the experts who study DNA!  And it's formation wasn't an accident, it was a natural process!  When are you ever going to correct your many mistakes!!!

For example, we are told that the information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as the enzyme it controls. Yet just one medium-sized protein will consist of about 300 amino acids! That protein was made by a DNA gene, which would have to have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a single DNA chain, one with 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. —4^1000 = 1.15•10^602  that is 1 followed by 602 zeros, which is more than billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions … the amount of electrons in the whole universe.

All just worthless handwaving!  I asked you to provide the exact formula that proves DNA formation by natural means is impossible, you couldn't do that, you lose.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:31 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from oct08 at 11:38 PM on December 23, 2008 :

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.


And those who are heterozygous for this trait are immune to malaria.  Depending on where you live, that would significantly raise your chances of having offspring.

George Wald is frequently quotemined in creationist literature, how do you like my sig?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:39 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it!

From here:
rel="nofollow]MurrayWho?

"Schroeder cites a Wistar institute conference as showing evidence of the improbability of evolution. The symposium was transcribed from audio and published in 1967 as Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, a Symposium Held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology April 25 and 26, 1966, Paul Moorhead and Martin Kaplan, eds. Needless to say, this is quite out of date. Worse, it does not support Schroeder at all. Only one paper comes anywhere near proposing that the origin of life and subsequent evolution is improbable: Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory" (pp. 5-20). He does not really argue that evolution is improbable, but rather that no present theory accounts for certain peculiarities of life on earth, especially the fact that all living organisms are composed of a very tiny fraction of all the possible proteins.

In particular, Eden argues that given all "polypeptide chains of length 250 [amino acids] or less...There are about 20^250 such words or about 10^325" (p. 7). This number is ripe for quoting, but it does not stand as the odds against life, and even Eden did not even imply such a meaning--to the contrary, he admits that perhaps "functionally useful proteins are very common in this space [of 10^325 arrangements]," and facing tough criticism in a discussion period (where his paper was torn apart, pp. 12-9) he was forced to admit again that perhaps "there are other domains in this tremendous space which are equally likely to be carriers of life" (p. 15). But his main argument is that life is concentrated around a tiny fraction of this possible protein development "space" and we have yet to explain why--although his critics point out why in discussion: once one system involving a score of proteins was selected, none others could compete even if they were to arise, thus explaining why all life has been built on one tiny set of proteins. One thing that even his critics in discussion missed is the fact that his number is wrong: he only calculates the number of those chains that are 250 acids long, but he refers to all those and all smaller chains, and to include all of those he must sum the total combinations for every chain from length 1 to 250. Of course, the number "250" is entirely arbitrary to begin with. He could have picked 100, 400, or 20. He gives no arguments for his choice, and as we have seen, this can have nothing to do with the first life, whose chain-length cannot be known or even guessed at [5].

Among the huge flaws in Eden's paper, pointed out by his critics, is that he somehow calculates, without explanation, that 120 point mutations would require 2,700,000 generations (among other things, he assumes a ridiculously low mutation rate of 1 in 1 million offspring). But in reality, even if only 1 mutation dominates a population every 20 generations, it will only take 2400 generations to complete a 120-point change--and that even assumes only 1 point mutation per generation, yet chromosome mixing and gene-pool variation will naturally produce many at a time, and mix and match as mating proceeds. Moreover, a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations, and will also be subject to further genetic improvements even before it has reached dominance."

So much for Murray Eden!  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:30 AM on December 24, 2008 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The argument that an event is 'impossible' because its 'prior probablility' was extremely low is complete nonsense.

Imagine a bag containing a trillion individually numbered tokens. Extract one token from the bag. No matter which token is selected the prior probability of that ball being selected was extremely low. This mind experiment can be conducted with as many tokens as you need to produce any aribtrarily low probability (as low as you like). Obviously it is nonsense to say that this event was impossible merely because its prior probablilty was  low.

The other problem with the prior probability argument is that it is based on complete lack of knowledge. The extremely low probabilities attributed to the formation of DNA simply reflect the very large number of alternative outcomes that we can imagine. The more we know about the process the more 'alternative outcomes' we can eliminate. Given the vast expanse of the universe it is also fair to say that the number of trials of this experiment has been huge. Increasing knowledge is rapidly reducing our measure of the prior probability to the point where some scientists are proposing that the emergence of life is almost inevitable.

My message to Creationists is... if evolution represents a threat to what you believe then how solid is your faith?

My message to evolutionists is...  if you 'believe in' evolution then what has happened to the intellectual scepticism which is the hallmark of the scientific approach?

Creation is theological narrative and evolution is scientific theory. The two sides of this argument might as well be speaking different languages for all that they understand each other.

The creation story is clearly mythical... it even refers to mythical monsters that inhabit the 'deep' which refers to the waters beyond the 'firmament' (note that the 'monsters' of the deep is NOT a reference to sea creatures). The 'cosmology' of Genesis is also quite obviously mythical. If you accept that Genesis is 'evidence' for Creation as a theory for abiogenesis  then surely you must also accept the Genesis cosmology through the same 'Biblical Authority' argument. How many Creationists believe that the sky is a large dome that holds out the waters of the deep which lie outside.

(Edited by waterboy 1/26/2009 at 07:02 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 07:42 AM on December 26, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please, gluteus, Lester. Explain yourselves.

Why do you believe that the process that we describe is random?

Only when you explain it (making sense) you can talk about the probabilities of it happening by random chance (making sense).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:56 PM on May 24, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.