Evolution... good, bad or ugly?

[PT]

But you don't know that the box weighs 20 pounds, just like you don't know the true age of the earth, without measuring devices. What scale did you weigh the box with, and why do trust that one?

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 5. PROBABILITY

The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations.

Dr. Coppedge "applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.

Completely irrelevant calculation. Why? Because random chance is but one part of evolution. The other, equally important, driving factor is natural selection, which is hardly random. No evolutionist ever claimed that any organism, cell, or even a singe protein came into existence entirely by chance. Therefore, all these ridiculously large numbers are simply meaningless.

Why Creationists don't understand this one very important concept I'll probably never understand.

I don't understand your line of reasoning here. The numbers are there... Face it, what is the chance that random molecules bumping into each other will form a protein. Not just a protein, a single celled creature!! All by sheer chance.

 

[Nixy]

How else would you know it weighed 20 pounds but to weigh it?

If you have one thing that says it weighs 20 pounds and 100000000 that say it weighs 10 pounds then the weight is 10 pounds.

That is how science works.

If that wasn't how science works the solar system woudl still be orbiting around the friggin earth! Just because something is believed to be true (it weighs 20 pounds) doesn't mean it stays forever. If more evidence exists for the 10 pounds then the weight will be said to be 10 pounds.

In the future we may find that we came to be through some other means but right now the evidence points towards evolution.

 

[Nixy]

EXACTLY PT!!!!

No matter WHO tells you the box weighs 20 pounds, even if it's the Pope himself. If the weighing devices say it's 10 then it is 10!

 

[Jeslek]

Radiometric is basically carbon-14 and that kind of dating methods. It has never been proven to be totally accurate. Unless you can PROVE it, we can't admit it as a valid argument.

There are many types of radiometric dating other than carbon-14, and all agree with each other, and with theoretical predictions, and with observations about cosmology, astrophysics, etc. What more do you want?

I have a feeling that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you. I find it quite amazing that someone who can take the existence of an all powerful being solely on the basis of faith will reject a dating technique that is as well proven as any other type of measurement in science.

Please leave religion out of this ok? We're discussing evolution, not my religion. I'm not totally rejecting radiometric dating. I'm simply pointing out that it HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED and one of the core foundations of evolution is this tremendous periods of time.

As far as not being able to prove it, that comes into the realm of epistemology. While it is true that nothing can ever be proved, there is good reason for believing certain things to be true. Radiometric dating is most definitely one of them, as is the fact that the Earth is round. Your argument against the former might as well be an argument against the latter as well.

Alright, we won't be able to convince each other here then. Radiometric dating has never been proved. I guess it depends on how much you will accept as proof. Just because a number of dating techniques say something isn't enough proof for me to rely on it as a totally accurate dating method.

Are you sure the earth isn't flat?

 

[Jeslek]

But you don't know that the box weighs 20 pounds, just like you don't know the true age of the earth, without measuring devices. What scale did you weigh the box with, and why do trust that one?

You're missing the point too. And Nixy. I think OLI is getting it though. I'm really not going to go through it again.




BTW OLI, I'm actually enjoying this discussion...

 

[unclehobart]

geology 101

If you're not going to bother explaining it more than that, your argument isn't valid. Just referring to a course isn't a valid argument. Tell me HOW you know for a fact that the given strata is 40,000 years old. HOW did they get that age?

Why should I bother? To everyone here BUT you it is a self apparent widely accepted field of study that doesnt have an agenda. No matter what type of explanation I would try to give you, you would just poo-poo it away. You would have us all chase smaller and smaller fragments and chase our tails until we implode in order to keep anyone from making the slightest observation.

In your world, Chinese people dont exist because you've never been to China. World War 2 never took place because you wernt alive to see it.

 

[outside looking in]

Re: 12. DINOSAURS

Yes I do. And there is proof. There are dinosaur and human footprints that overlap, in the same strata.

No dinosaur and human footprints have ever been found in the same strata. All examples that were believe to illustrate this were either hoaxed, or misidentified.

Well, I believe the Earth was quite lush with vegetation before the great Flood. Plenty of food for all. Hence all the oil fields we have today.

Yes, and during "the Great Flood" wasn't all the vegetation completely covered? So all food for a year (or perhaps it was 10 months before the water began to recede, my Biblical memory is a bit faded as well) would have to have been carried on the Ark from day one. Hundreds of thousands of species, all eating how much for a year? How many times the total mass of living organisms would the food be? And how big again was the Ark?

Serious problem.

 

[Nixy]

You expect something to be PROVEN? NOTHING can be proven unless you see it happening!!!!

We didn't know for SURE that the world was a sphere until we went into space and say it. We had enough proof to say it was but we didn't know for SURE.

We will never know FOR SURE how old something is unless we go back in time.

That's science. Stuff can not be proved for absolutel certain. When things follow the same pattern OVER and OVER though, it can then be assumed to be true.

 

[Jeslek]

geology 101

If you're not going to bother explaining it more than that, your argument isn't valid. Just referring to a course isn't a valid argument. Tell me HOW you know for a fact that the given strata is 40,000 years old. HOW did they get that age?

Why should I bother? To everyone here BUT you it is a self apparent widely accepted field of study that doesnt have an agenda. No matter what type of explanation I would try to give you, you would just poo-poo it away. You would have us all chase smaller and smaller fragments and chase our tails until we implode in order to keep anyone from making the slightest observation.

OK so you can't give me any reasons? ... fine

In your world, Chinese people dont exist because you've never been to China. World War 2 never took place because you wernt alive to see it.

Take a hike will you? I'm asking for proof, and you refuse to even _try_ to explain it to me.

At least OLI is trying to carry on a decent discussion... I'm going to ignore asinine comments now and only focus on valid discussion points.

 

[PT]

I'm rather surprised, LL. You seem to be a somewhat technically savvy person, you believe in electronics and science to the degree that you are going to school for a degree in computer science and engineering, yet you still base your arguments on faith. I'm not trying to slam your religon here at all, it's just that in my experience, the more technical a person is, the less religon has to do with their life, and their beliefs, and they tend to believe more in science, and that there must be a physical reason for everything.

 

[outside looking in]

Re: 10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Your arguments up to now have been reasonable good, but this one is weak IMHO.

Why? Picking a certain gene sequence or protein structure out of the millions available, and using that as a basis for comparing genetic relationships, is just not good science.

I picked equally arbritrary characteristics, and used that to illustrate the point.

Instead of choosing certain fragments of genetic sequences that don't show the expected correlation, take the entire genetic sequence for the organism instead and then compare the percentage difference. If you did this, you would see the evolutionary lineage just as predicted.

 

[Nixy]

I was just thinking that PT!

I was wondering what he's like in Chemistry class!!! Nothing is proven in chemistry. It is all based on mutiple experiments that point to the same thing. It is constantly changing and evolving. That's not to say it is currently untrue, it is constantly being improved upon.

I was imagiing him sitting there refusing to write tests because there's no PROOF for what they taught. Only HUNDREDS of experients by people with Masters and Doctorates, etc

 

[Luis G]

so 10,000 years or less ago the earth was inhabited by dinosaurs?
we've had several glaciar eras in only 10,000 years?

now i'm shocked.

 

[Nixy]

and humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time?

I was lied to! The Flintstones were real!!!

 

[Jeslek]

I'm rather surprised, LL. You seem to be a somewhat technically savvy person, you believe in electronics and science to the degree that you are going to school for a degree in computer science and engineering, yet you still base your arguments on faith.

Look, I'm religious, and it does have part to play in my beliefs, but not all of it. You mean to tell me that believing radiometric dating doesn't take faith?

Scientific American and another couple of magazines had articles on Evolution... A lot of scientists are dismissing it because it simply isn't feasable. There is even a third theory that is being proposed now. I like reading about i

I'm not trying to slam your religon here at all, it's just that in my experience, the more technical a person is, the less religon has to do with their life, and their beliefs, and they tend to believe more in science, and that there must be a physical reason for everything.

Look, religion is part of me. I'm a Christian, saved, and I won't part with that. You can't possibly know the feeling in your heart unless you reach that stage. You're probably thinking I'm nuts, crazy, and stupid for being religious. I don't care... Its who I am and I'm not embarassed about it.

So far I've not mentioned ANY religious reason at all for arguing against evolution. You don't have to believe in Creation to disbelieve evolution. There are people, scientists out there that does just that.

 

[Nixy]

Oh look, everything I say is being ignored.

First I'm not allowed to post because it no adding to the discussion and then I try to discuss and get ignored!

Well,

*streaks through this thread*

 

[Jeslek]

so 10,000 years or less ago the earth was inhabited by dinosaurs?
we've had several glaciar eras in only 10,000 years?

now i'm shocked.

Standing ovation for this remarkable display of intellect. The level of this discussion is now so much higher.

 

[outside looking in]

Re: 9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA

Where is the mutations today? No, where are the beneficial mutations today. Actually, name some benficial mutations that happened on the genetic, or physical, level in the last 5,000 years. I'm not much informed, and there could be, but I'd like to know.

There are many examples of plant and animal species mutating in a short time to gain resistance to a certain chemical or disease. If you insist, I can dig up a few of them for reference.

As far as I know, physical mutations do not carry over to offspring. Therefore, only genetic mutations can be considered.

All physical mutations are caused by a genetic mutation... that's the way it works. Now, if your leg is cut off in an accident, that can't be passed on to offspring because it isn't represented in your genetic code you were born with. But, if by some freak mutation, you had an extra finger, then that is caused by a genetic mutation that you will carry for the rest of your life and could certainly be passed on to children (it is a possibility, not a certainty though, since there is both mother and father, sometimes with multiple copies of a certain gene sequence).

Now I know genetic mutations happen all the time, but isn't just about all of them DAMAGING to the person/animal? Take Down's Syndrome for example. The gene is damaged, but it isn't beneficial to the person. Is there a modern day mutation on a genetic level that is actually helpful? (I honestly don't know, and I'm not aware of any...)

Yes, nearly all genetic mutations are harmful. The vast majority in fact. However, under certain enviromental pressures (natural selection), a certain mutation (one in a million for example) might produce a benefit to the organism. In that case, the organism has an increased chance of survival, and passes the gene on to offspring. These offspring, in time, tend to survive more often, and the population slowly shifts to carry this mutation.

For a modern example of a helpful mutation, I believe sickle cell anemia protects its carriers from malaria (I think that was it). In some environments, the threat from malaria is greater than that from anemia, and the mutation survives.

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Your arguments up to now have been reasonable good, but this one is weak IMHO.

Why? Picking a certain gene sequence or protein structure out of the millions available, and using that as a basis for comparing genetic relationships, is just not good science.

I don't think it was just random. I wish I could take this argument further, but I'm very restricted to what I know at this point.... I haven't even completed first year yet. lol. I'm going to pull out a few books tonight. I really appreciate this discussion with you, to be honest with you. You argue in a very nice and kind way, and I can talk back to you in a simliar fashion (I hope I'm arguing civilized)...