God

[Hoth]

I've never understood why religious people don't simply view evolution as god's method of creation. They could easily say that the rules involved in cycles of life and death and reproduction over time are set as rules by god... but instead many seem to prefer to cling to the idea that things are static.

Even species of bacteria that've been around for a billion years mutate, despite not having the sexual reproduction to allow faster changes. For life to not change over time, your god must have to step in and reverse the changes every once in a while, if he really wants to insist on creating entire species one at a time rather than using the natural system that he himself must have presumably put there (from a religious point of view).

 

[ImaHamster2]

Markx asked for scientific opinions of the article:

“However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans.”

This information is out of date. The current estimate for the number of human genes is slightly over thirty thousand. However genes may code for many different proteins. The estimated number of proteins varies from a hundred thousand to over a million. (This is a very active and exciting area of research.)

The URL Cris provided is an excellent reference on chimp DNA compared to human DNA. Thank you Cris.

“For example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. (New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27) This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were different from each other even 530 million years ago.

On the other hand, in another finding which also appeared in the Turkish media, it was stated that the comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit fly belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. (Hürriyet, 24 February 2000)”

This hamster is unsure of the dates in this quote. Seems to be close to beginnings of multi-cellular life. Nor does this hamster feel that any “family tree” should be considered more than a best guess that is subject to revision as better data is discovered.

In this hamster’s opinion the estimates of 75% similarity between nematode DNA and man and the 60% similarity between a fruit fly and man do reflect how similar all multi-cellular life is. These are very exciting results. In this hamster’s view most of the “hard” evolutionary work was done over the billions of years during which single-celled life evolved. (Most life is still single-celled.) All the multi-cellular life arose over a mere half billion years. Nematodes, flies, and humans are near relatives in the big picture. (That’s why discoveries made on fruit flies often apply to humans.)

“Another example used by evolutionists on "the genetic similarity between man and ape", is the presence of 48 chromosomes in chimpanzees and gorillas versus 46 chromosomes in man. Evolutionists regard the closeness of the number of chromosomes as indication of an evolutionary relationship. However, if this logic used by evolutionists were true, then man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee: "the potato"!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46”

This provided a great chuckle. Yep, many very different critters have the same number of chromosomes. (Given the large number of life forms and the small number of chromosomes this is obvious.) It is important that near relatives not have too different a chromosomal structure (otherwise it’s unlikely they are near relatives). However this hamster doubts any scientist has claimed that having the same number of chromosomes indicates two critters (or a critter and a potato) are related. The author attacks an absurd strawman argument. (Poor “science” but it was funny. Hehe.)

Some evolutionists are overly enthusiastic and state claims as fact before the evidence is conclusive. (Yep, scientists are human.) Conjectures are made that later turn out to be false. The world is often more complicated than one would first guess. That is the nature of science. Build a theory based on evidence and make predictions. When predictions fail then the theory is revised. The Theory of Evolution has been the most powerful theory in biology. Time and again it provides insight that leads to further discovery. It is a growing theory that continually expands its scope. The supporting evidence for the main tenets of the theory is overwhelming. (A fair sized library would be required to hold all the scientific evidence for the theory.)

The last half of the article is religion rather than science so this hamster is neither qualified nor motivated to critique it. (Same statement applies to Markx’s above post. There is no science to critique.)

 

[ImaHamster2]

Hoth, virii may provide some of the benefits of sexual reproduction to bacteria. A successful gene may accidentally be incorporated into the virus code. The virus might then insert the gene into another bacteria. (The human genome is littered with DNA left from old viral attacks.) Genetic change might also occur through incorporating plasmids from a bacteria’s food. Thus an evolutionary “discovery” of an advantageous protein may over time be spread across bacterial lines.

 

[Hoth]

In that case, God had really better keep a closer eye on those virii and plasmids, or they might cause too many changes to occur over time and mess up His master plan of individual, separate creation. A few virii get out of control, God is busy looking at something else for a few hundred million years, and before he can turn around again his beautiful planet is overrun with intelligent hamsters.

 

[ImaHamster2]

The hamsters shall inherit the earth.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by Hoth
I've never understood why religious people don't simply view evolution as god's method of creation. They could easily say that the rules involved in cycles of life and death and reproduction over time are set as rules by god... but instead many seem to prefer to cling to the idea that things are static.

Even species of bacteria that've been around for a billion years mutate, despite not having the sexual reproduction to allow faster changes. For life to not change over time, your god must have to step in and reverse the changes every once in a while, if he really wants to insist on creating entire species one at a time rather than using the natural system that he himself must have presumably put there (from a religious point of view).

I have no problem in believing in that. You maybe very correct and I think you make more sense. It very well could be act of nature or in other words act of God?. Hamster you do have some valid points, But I am not finish yet. Since I see some people are taking interest and providing me some extra knowledge, I think I am going to post more.
Thanks again for all of your inputs.

 

[Markx]

Some more info some more artlices from Singapore Weekly ( Feb 14 2000). Now are the correct or not? If what they are saing is true then



CONFESSIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS

Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1

The same fact is also admitted by other scientists:

DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNAform without proteins.2 How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNAmolecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.3



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78
2 John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
3 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548



Some more on the similar topic.



THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS INVALIDATES
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything living or non-living wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another and according to this law, this unavoidable process has no return.

This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tyres had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its motor had decayed. The same inevitable process holds true and even more quickly for living things.


The Law of Thermodynamics holds that natural conditions always lead to disorder. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific theory that utterly contradicts with this law.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined with physical equations and calculations.

This famous law of physics is also known as "the Law of Entropy". Entropy is the range of the disorder involved in a system in physics. A system's entropy is increased as it moves towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned state from an ordered, organised, and planned one. The higher a system's disorder, the higher is its entropy. The Law of Entropy holds that the entire universe unavoidably proceeds towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state.

The validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Entropy, is experimentally and theoretically established. The most important scientists of our age agree on the fact that The Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, said that it is the "premier law of all of science". Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe".1

Evolutionary theory is an assertion that is advanced by totally ignoring this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and inorganic atoms and molecules spontaneously came together in time in a certain order and plan to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA after which they gradually brought about millions of different living species with even more complex structures. According to the evolutionary theory, this supposed process that yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage has formed all by itself under natural conditions. The Law of Entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.

Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J.H. Rush states:

In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.2

The evolutionist scientist Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:

One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.3

Another evolutionist scientist, George Stravropoulos states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the unfeasibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist magazine American Scientist:

Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it is, and the more assured, sooner or later, is its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and life itself, despite confused or deliberately confusing language, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science.4

As acknowledged, the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution in terms of both science and logic. Unable to put forth any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only defeat it in their imagination. For instance, the famous evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.5

These words very well indicate that evolution is totally a dogmatic belief.


THE MYTH OF THE "OPEN SYSTEM"

Confronted by all these truths, evolutionists have had to take refuge in a mangling of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, saying that it holds true only for "closed systems" and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law.

An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy matter flow in and out, unlike a "closed system", in which the initial energy and matter remains constant. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply for the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs a motor, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in gasoline to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy in gasoline.

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on its own.

The influx of solar energy into the world has no effect that would on its own bring order. No matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is not enough to make amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins or for proteins to form the much complex and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this organization at all levels is conscious design: in a word, creation.


THE "CHAOS THEORY" EVASION

Quite aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to close the gap between the two so as to render evolution possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.

One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine.

Starting out from the Chaos Theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order forms from chaos (disorder). Despite his best efforts however, Prigogine has been unable to pull off the wedding. This is clearly seen in what he says:

There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder?6

Prigogine, who knows quite well that theories at the molecular level are not applicable to living systems, such as a living cell, stresses this problem: The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.7

This is the point most recently arrived at by Chaos Theory and related speculations. No concrete outcome has been attained that would support or verify evolution or eliminate the contradiction between evolution, entropy, and other physical laws.

Despite all these evident facts, evolutionists try to take refuge in simple subterfuges. Plain scientific truths show that living things and the ordered, planned, and complex structures of living things could in no way have come into being by coincidence under normal circumstances. This situation makes it clear that the existence of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New York, Viking Press, 1980, p.6
2 J. H.Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p 35
3 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity", Science, vol. 217, 24.9.1982, p. 1239
4 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science", American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p.674
5 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, p.55
6 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, New York, Bantam Books, 1984, p. 129
7 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, p. 175 36

 

[Cris]

Markx,

Evolution is both fact and a theory. There is no question that evolution has taken place and is currently active; that is fact. The complete details of the process are still being researched, although most are already well understood, and it is this process that forms what is called evolutionary theory. And this is a work in progress.

The fact of evolution cannot be denied. If a creator god exists then the only way he could have created life or the universe was to kick start the evolutionary process.

The vast bulk of scientific papers show how the evolutionary process really operates and are distinct from the heavily biased and distorted religious propaganda that is being intermixed in your posts here.

Are the religious claims in your posts your opinions or the opinions of the authors you are quoting?

Cris

 

[Bambi]

Markx,

If I may butt in for a moment, I just want to show that your sources are monumentally ignorant scientifically, and hence your reliance on them to judge scientific matters is misguided. I'll just address a few key points from your last post that completely destroy the corresponding arguments.

Originally posted by Markx

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1

This is an argument from "irreducible complexity". Irreducible complexity is a thinly veiled fraud. By such an argument, the modern society was created in its modern form because it has so many complex and interdependent structures that could not have possibly formed by accident. The argument completely ignores the fact that the complex structures evolved from much simpler structures, which in turn evolved from yet simpler structures, and so on. Modern DNA and proteins are not the original starting blocks.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS INVALIDATES
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
...
The Law of Thermodynamics holds that natural conditions always lead to disorder.

Wrong. The second law dictates a net increase in entropy. Such increase can come as a result of a local entropic decrease at the cost of larger entropic increase in the environment.

Evolutionary theory is an assertion that is advanced by totally ignoring this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and inorganic atoms and molecules spontaneously came together in time in a certain order and plan to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA after which they gradually brought about millions of different living species with even more complex structures.

Wrong. Evolution does not postulate DNA, RNA or complex proteins as the origins of life. In addition, if order could never arise in the universe then a chaotic interstellar gas cloud could never collapse into a solar system, and heavy elements could never be manufactured inside stars, crystals could never form, etc. The Second Law deals with net increase in entropy.

Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law.

A blatant lie. Ask any organic chemist.

Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it is, and the more assured, sooner or later, is its disintegration.

Another blatant lie. Complex molecules form out of precursors precisely because they are more stable than the original collection of precursors within the corresponding environment.

Photosynthesis and all life processes, and life itself, despite confused or deliberately confusing language, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science.4

Yet another blatant lie. Photosynthesis is very well understood thermodynamically.

THE MYTH OF THE "OPEN SYSTEM"

...The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs a motor, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in gasoline to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy in gasoline.

The energy conversion system in question is defined in terms of atomic matter.

It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

Life did not start photosynthetic. Photosynthesis appeared only hundreds of millions of years after the first life on Earth. The first life used chemical energy of the environment.

Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on its own.

Wrong. Photosynthetic life did not form ex-nihilo but evolved from simpler life. Photosynthesis can and has been replicated in the laboratory.

Energy by itself is not enough to make amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins or for proteins to form the much complex and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this organization at all levels is conscious design: in a word, creation.

Wrong again. First of all, amino acids do react among each other with no extra help. Many other reactions occur due to catalysts. There are many natural organic and inorganic catalysts that make possible various organic reactions that would not occur otherwise.

THE "CHAOS THEORY" EVASION
...

The Chaos theory studies evolution of a certain class of nonlinear systems. It has hardly any bearing on thermodynamics or the origins of life.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Hoth
I've never understood why religious people don't simply view evolution as god's method of creation.*

Because it isn't.
God's method of creation is to speak.

*many seem to prefer to cling to the idea that things are static.*

There's nothing static about the way things are.

*Even species of bacteria that've been around for a billion years mutate, despite not having the sexual reproduction to allow faster changes.*

The fact that those bacteria are still bacteria after a billion years pretty much blows the theory of evolution out of the water, or have you not heard that evolution means that they are supposed to evolve?

*For life to not change over time, your god must have to step in and reverse the changes every once in a while*

What changes?
The ones imagined in school textbooks?

*Originally posted by Markx
Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement.*

It's pretty much confounded by everything else, too.

*For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.*

Wow.
Even scientists are forced to admit that science has no answers.
Who knew?

*Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific theory that utterly contradicts with this law.*

Who knew?

*These words very well indicate that evolution is totally a dogmatic belief.*

Yes.
The religion called science has dogma, which has to be accepted on blind faith.

*Originally posted by Cris
Evolution is both fact and a theory. There is no question that evolution has taken place and is currently active; that is fact.*

It is only theory of the most speculative sort.
There are plenty of questions and no answers where evolution is concerned.
There is not a single scrap of evidence that indicates that evolution has taken place.
The entire theory of evolution is based on two fallacies, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Two skeletons are supposedly linked in some evolutionary chain because they are found near each other or because one is found on top of the other.

*The fact of evolution cannot be denied.*

Sure it can be, watch...
I deny it.

*The vast bulk of scientific papers show how the evolutionary process really operates*

Or how effective hallucinatory drugs really are.

*Originally posted by Bambi
The argument completely ignores the fact that the complex structures evolved from much simpler structures, which in turn evolved from yet simpler structures, and so on.*

Not quite.
The argument actually includes the fact that five billion years is nowhere near enough time for that to happen.

*Complex molecules form out of precursors precisely because they are more stable than the original collection of precursors within the corresponding environment.*

Not true.
Human beings are made of some pretty complex molecules, yet all of the formerly living are now collections of less complex molecules.

*First of all, amino acids do react among each other with no extra help.*

They may do so now.
However, the overall explanation has to able to explain how that would happen on bare rock, which is theoretically the state of the earth 5 billion years ago.

 

[Hoth]

Originally posted by tony1
The fact that those bacteria are still bacteria after a billion years pretty much blows the theory of evolution out of the water, or have you not heard that evolution means that they are supposed to evolve?

Sigh. Tony, I know this won't get through to you, but evolution does not say "survival of the fittest." It's survival of the fit, of which there's a very wide diversity. Species that are adapted enough to live continue to exist as species. The natural changes of the world alter individuals of the species (not every member of the species at once), and their offspring may pass on the alteration if they don't die from it... and if it turns out to be useful it may get exagerated and eventually turn into a new species... ask a biologist for details. Point is, this doesn't cause all the unaltered members of the species to die, because they're perfectly able to survive and reproduce as they are... it simply creates a new species over time. (In the case of sexual creatures it's considered a new species as soon as it can't breed with the species it's bloodline originated from.)

Originally posted by tony1
What changes?
The ones imagined in school textbooks?

The ones directly observed in nature over time, which if you project out over a sufficiently long period of time result in what's known as evolution.

Originally posted by Markx
I have no problem in believing in that. You maybe very correct and I think you make more sense. It very well could be act of nature or in other words act of God?.

In that case why do you have a problem with evolution? Evolution doesn't discuss what causes the rules of nature or the rules of logic to be as they are. Evolution is simply an attempt at describing how things change over time. Religion is about the question "why?", evolution is about the question "how?"

In fact, if evolution were to claim to know of a purpose for why things evolve, rather than simply observing how they do, it'd become a religion. (And ironically, as an atheist I'd then be the one arguing against it.)

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by tony1

*Originally posted by Bambi
The argument completely ignores the fact that the complex structures evolved from much simpler structures, which in turn evolved from yet simpler structures, and so on.*

Not quite.
The argument actually includes the fact that five billion years is nowhere near enough time for that to happen.

Considering that a typical chemical reaction occurs on a femtosecond time scale, I can only wonder at the motivations behind your assertion.

Evolution of complex cellular life must have been preceded by evolution of much simpler molecular life.

*Complex molecules form out of precursors precisely because they are more stable than the original collection of precursors within the corresponding environment.*

Not true.
Human beings are made of some pretty complex molecules, yet all of the formerly living are now collections of less complex molecules.

The medium and conditions of reaction determine whether it will occur or not. Modern biochemical complexity is indicative of evolution, not of any complexity of life's origins.

However, the overall explanation has to able to explain how that would happen on bare rock, which is theoretically the state of the earth 5 billion years ago.

Bare rock, or perhaps underwater, or perhaps on water surface, or maybe air, or perhaps space -- and probably several or all of the above, and more. Chemistry is not confined to rock surfaces, FYI.

That being said, bare rock actually happens to be catalytic to a variety of organic reactions.

 

[ImaHamster2]

This hamster has long admired Hofstadter and can’t resist responding to a Hofstadter quote.

”DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNAform without proteins.2 How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNAmolecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.3”

Labeling Hofstadter’s words as a “confession” is a major distortion. (Actually it's an out right lie.) Hofstadter rightly points out that the DNA had to evolve in conjunction with the molecular machinery used to build proteins and cellular structures from the DNA.

How this happened is not yet known. These are exciting times. Over two hundred “molecular machines” have been discovered in a yeast cell. Working out the structure and function of these machines in a living cell should be fascinating. The Theory of Evolution is major tool helping this discovery process.

Seeing evolution in operation from the molecular level to the macro level is wonderful and awe inspiring. Beauty and complexity arising from natural processes.

(As Rifkin is being quoted as an authority this hamster wishes to point out that Rifkin is not a scientist. Rifkin seeds make this hamster puke.)

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Hoth
Tony, I know this won't get through to you, but evolution does not say "survival of the fittest."*

Who said it did?

*It's survival of the fit, of which there's a very wide diversity. Species that are adapted enough to live continue to exist as species. The natural changes of the world alter individuals of the species (not every member of the species at once), and their offspring may pass on the alteration if they don't die from it... and if it turns out to be useful it may get exagerated and eventually turn into a new species... ask a biologist for details. Point is, this doesn't cause all the unaltered members of the species to die, because they're perfectly able to survive and reproduce as they are... it simply creates a new species over time. (In the case of sexual creatures it's considered a new species as soon as it can't breed with the species it's bloodline originated from.)*

No critical thinking there at all.
That sounded almost as if you were describing a true thing, but in actual fact, everything you just wrote is pure fiction, which you believe wholeheartedly.

Your description is completely at odds with Haldane's dilemma among other things.
First of all, you're making quite the assumption that the unaltered species would be able to coexist with the altered species.
After all, if they could, what would be the point of evolving, if one isn't actually fitter than the other?

*The ones directly observed in nature over time, which if you project out over a sufficiently long period of time result in what's known as evolution.*

Sure.
Extrapolate 5 billion years from a knowledge base of about a hundred years.
I'm afraid you're going to have to do a little better than that.

*evolution is about the question "how?"*

Actually, evolution is more about "how can we con as many people as we can?"

*In fact, if evolution were to claim to know of a purpose for why things evolve, rather than simply observing how they do, it'd become a religion. (And ironically, as an atheist I'd then be the one arguing against it.) *

Better start arguing against it then, because the purpose for why things supposedly evolve is to survive.

*Originally posted by Bambi
Considering that a typical chemical reaction occurs on a femtosecond time scale, I can only wonder at the motivations behind your assertion.*

I really hope you aren't going to try to explain that evolution works on the same time scale.

In any case, a human being, for example, has 3.2 billion base pairs.
From zero, that works out to an average of 18.75 mo. for the addition of each new base pair for five billion years straight.

It is complete lunacy to believe in evolution that works that fast.
AND, it doesn't matter how you weight the time vs. base-pair relationship.
No matter what you do to try to explain that, you'll end up looking like an idiot.

*Evolution of complex cellular life must have been preceded by evolution of much simpler molecular life.*

One would think so, but why do we still have that much simpler molecular life?
The fog you have to purposefully insert into your mind to explain that doesn't apply to me.
You see, your unstated assumption is that there is this "population" that evolves gradually over time.
The problem is that evolution fails to deal with the reality of "one at a time."
There had to be a first molecule, and whatever species you are dreaming about always has to have a first instance.
You have to explain that one instance in each and every case, rather than just blurring the picture by thinking of "populations."

*Modern biochemical complexity is indicative of evolution, not of any complexity of life's origins.*

So it is said to be, anyway.
You're overlooking the existence of corpses.
What evolutionary process would lead to a corpse?
What survival mechanism leads to its exact opposite?

Corpses are less complex than the original creature.

*Bare rock, or perhaps underwater, or perhaps on water surface, or maybe air, or perhaps space -- and probably several or all of the above, and more. Chemistry is not confined to rock surfaces, FYI.

That being said, bare rock actually happens to be catalytic to a variety of organic reactions.*

Of course, this "air" you're referring to wouldn't have the same chemical composition, either.
Similarly, bare rock might be catalytic to a number of reactions, however, at the same time, the earth's temperature would be different, and the air composition would be different, and the amount of UV would be different, etc.

*Originally posted by ImaHamster2
Seeing evolution in operation from the molecular level to the macro level is wonderful and awe inspiring.*

And fictional.
Since no one else has observed it, there's little point in claiming to be the first.

 

[Markx]

Bambi,
Your sources please. I gave you mine. They were not my opinions they were from known scientists. Some of them maybe from author. Also if you deny and say all those scientists said were a lie or most of it, then it would make you better scientist then them?. I am not saying that you are lying here but still it would be nice if you give some sources. I still think that Hoth make more sense, God created universe and let it evolve. It had to be done some how. I mean God really didn't need to come down and create every specie.

Honeslty what do you think, What is purpose of your life? or life in general please let us know how do you look at life? What would happened once you are dead. I mean what are your feelings about it. Give me some logic here. Let me get back to you about some more stuff with references.

Thanks again for all of you. It never hurts to see opinions and see what other have to say. And welcome back tony1.

 

[Hoth]

Originally posted by tony1
First of all, you're making quite the assumption that the unaltered species would be able to coexist with the altered species.
After all, if they could, what would be the point of evolving, if one isn't actually fitter than the other?

There is no "point" to evolving. Things don't decide to evolve. Rather it simply happens to them, not with any goal but simply because that's the way life, death and reproduction work.

Any meaning or goal applied to evolution would have to come from a god being credited with setting up rules. Evolution should be describing a physical process, not the goals of god (since goals of god are not scientifically observable), therefore meanings should be kept out of it. (Religious people can of course apply the meaning on top if they like, and say that their god set up evolution to work as it does in order to produce a certain result [like humans], but the meaning should not be considered a part of evolution itself.)

Originally posted by tony1
Better start arguing against it then, because the purpose for why things supposedly evolve is to survive.

Anyone who tells you that either doesn't have a clue about evolution, or perhaps they're talking down to you trying to keep it linguistically simple. It's much easier for you to explain why you're doing something (for example, why you're here in this thread) in terms of what you hope to achieve in the future, rather than in terms of the chain of events in the past actually lead to you doing what you're doing. (You'd rather say you're here to tell us evolution is wrong, rather than say you're here because your great-grandparents were lucky enough to meet each other one day.) Similarly people may find it easier to talk about evolution in terms of forward-thinking "goals", but evolution is actually about observation and extrapolation of causes and effects without any goal or purpose involved.

Bacteria don't decide that they want to survive or propagate their species, their basic structure simply causes them to reproduce, with the effect that there end up being more of the species. Neither purpose nor free will is involved in the survival of the bacteria.

So yes, I am annoyed by the people who describe evolution in terms of goals and purpose. Evolution is just a process -- meanings and goals, whether applied by a god or by a human, are external to the process itself.

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by Markx

Your sources please. I gave you mine.

I don't have any to give you. What I'm telling you I learned in High School and college as part of the science education I obtained; I continue to learn from the science journals I subscribe to (Scientific American, Nature, IEEE CiSE.) If you want sources, pick up any chemistry or biology textbook; they usually have many pages of references in the back.

The tragedy is that you should have been able to make that post of mine yourself -- but you just don't have the requisite education (and no, you shouldn't even need a college degree to know enough.) And you are not alone. And you are all being lied to by the snake oil salesmen waging war against science.

They were not my opinions they were from known scientists. Some of them maybe from author. Also if you deny and say all those scientists said were a lie or most of it, then it would make you better scientist then them?

They are not scientists, despite what they may claim. I am not a scientist (I'm an engineer) -- but even I know enough to expose the multitude of fallacies in their "arguments".

There are plenty of creationists running around with Mickey Mouse PhDs from some mailbox university in Australian outback. It's just too bad that so many people (like you) simply don't know enough and are easy targets for the sharlatans -- always were, and still are.

If you want to make sure I'm not the one bullshitting you, print out my post and take it to any High School science teacher for cross-checking. Better yet, take some science courses in school or in community college. Or at least get a trial subscription of Scientific American (it's pretty down to earth and high quality popular science news.) It never hurts to be more aware.

I still think that Hoth make more sense, God created universe and let it evolve. It had to be done some how. I mean God really didn't need to come down and create every specie.

Even if that were so, the texts you cited argue against that very position.

As to how "it" had to be "done" -- why does "it" require an intelligent agent? No other physical process in the universe does.

Honeslty what do you think, What is purpose of your life? or life in general please let us know how do you look at life? What would happened once you are dead. I mean what are your feelings about it. Give me some logic here. Let me get back to you about some more stuff with references.

What does any of that have to do with life on Earth or the history of the universe? What you want to believe is up to you, but it still doesn't change what actually is the case.

If you want someone to define your purpose for you then you are not very emotionally mature. We create our own purpose. We give ourselves meaning. Purpose and meaning exist only in our minds -- they are our creations, they are manifestations of our intelligence.

If you really just want to hear my personal attitude toward existence, then I'll oblige you. Still, it won't have any bearing on cold hard reality.

 

[ismu]

late...

Sory for late. i wasn't online for couple days.

Most of questions has been answered by markx very well.

This post is directed to hockeywings for his/her question to me.


Originally posted by hockeywings

ISMU, i appologize for not replying to your post first. But here goes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hockeywings,

My statements on your quotes is not for everyone. It's directed to someone who have religion, but haven't recognize his/her God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the impression i get here is that you are saying that your previous post was made towards people that have found a religion but are not completely convinced it is the right one, is this right?

If this is correct your first post makes no sence when you start off saying
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who don't believe on God...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please clarrify who you are directing this to.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also respect on other's religion which have different concept about their God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My post was directed to previous sender who deny existance of God (see page1).

I assume you beleive that their religion is wrong and yours is right, if so why would you promote their ignorance by respecting that?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By folowing/studying their holy book, first, they'll become better people, next (i hope) they recognize their God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said that others religion is wrong. they can decide it if they really study it in their holybook. see other treads in religion topics, wich doubt the truth of their holy book.

By studying their holy book which i presume, once again, that you beleive isnt completely acurate, is supposed to make them better people? How is this so, believing a lie and teaching others lies is supposed to be good for them? I have a bad feeling of thinking of teachers in classrooms teaching me the wrong things and them being better people for that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowing God is long proccess. Just knowing concept about God, sometimes is not enough to believe Him. Someone will really believe in God after he/she can feel His existance after long experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for human relationship, ussualy people who have religion doing better than people without any rule in their life. by trying to obey their religion, they will be more care about their holybook, study it, then find out what's right or wrong. next step (if they care), they'll try to search for truly truth. it is very posible to compare their religion with other.

I do not know of any friends that when i first found out about that i denied they existed, why should such be the case for god, is it because there is no proof you can show for him ACTUALLY existing? in that same line i was curious as to the evidence that you alledgedly have
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My religion give me undeniable explanation about existance of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This question has answered in previous post (mostly by markx)

There is more thing i like to add here, the Qur'an itself is proof of existance of Allah. In Qur'an God says (wich verses i forgot, may be markx can help), that Allah himself maintain the originality of Qur'an. Qur'an is one of prophet Muhammad's miracle (proof) wich is we still can see today. Any attempt to spread twisted version of Qur'an in this earth was never succeed and will never succeed. This is one big proove we can actualy see!

Note: I will not force anyone to become a moslem nor to believe on my opinions. We all have freedom to choose the way of life, including religion. But theese prove must have meaning for anyone who really think and seek the truth, open minded.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by Bambi
Originally posted by Markx


If you really just want to hear my personal attitude toward existence, then I'll oblige you. Still, it won't have any bearing on cold hard reality.

Ok I still would like to know. It has lot to do with subject we are dealing with here. We are not just dealing with science but wider topic of creator and purpose of we beeing here.

Fair enough regarding your sources. I will look into more sources. But could it be possible what have you read in school is changed now or slightly change perhaps? I am sure it has been a while since you were in HS.

 

[Markx]

Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.


" Most of the life forms found in this strata have complex systems like eyes, gills, circulatory system, and advanced physiological structures no different from their modern counterparts. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today ".

(David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, Vol 50, January 1979, p. 24)


Any thoughts?


These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.

Richard Monastersky, the editor of Earth Sciences, which is one of the popular publications of evolutionist literature, states the following about the "Cambrian Explosion" which came as a total surprise to evolutionists:


A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today.

( Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient", Discover, April 1993, p. 40)


Any thing you like say on that?


Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period. An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says:
"The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today". ( Richard Fortey, "The Cambrian Explosion Exploded?", Science, vol 293, No 5529, 20 July 2001, p. 438-439)

The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:

Care to explain above??

This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record. Furthermore, cladistic analyses of arthropod phylogeny revealed that trilobites, like eucrustaceans, are fairly advanced "twigs" on the arthropod tree. But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking. .....Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered, it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian. ( from same article )

How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of living groups all of a sudden and how these distinct creatures with no common ancestors could have emerged is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists. The Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that invalidates the very roots of all the arguments he has been defending:


For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ( Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W. W. Norton 1986, p. 229 )


Another interesting thing.



THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE


I trilobiti, apparsi d'improvviso nel periodo Cambriano, The trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.

This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation.

Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.
(R.L.Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Physiology of Seeing, Oxford University Press, 1995, p.3)




As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionist biologist admits this fact and states: "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." (33 Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983, p. 197)

Darwin himself recognised the possibility of this when he wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." ( Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 30)

The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". (Stefan Bengston, Nature, Vol. 345, 1990, p. 765)

As may be seen, the fossil record indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to the advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden and in a perfect state. In short, living beings did not come into existence by evolution, they were created.




Interesting isn't it?. You can deny all that as well but it won't change that fact or would it?. I still need to verify your claims regarding science and in time I will do that. But I do like to thank you for your interest. And also for others who are giving scientific and other form of information.