Creationism vs. Evolution

[Asimov]

Alright you Creationists. I hear a lot about evolution being a lie, false, unsupported, faith-based...blah blah blah.

 

First, let us define Evolution:

 

Massimo defined it very well:

 

"The claim that all living beings chare a common ancestor" and "The diversification of life is the result of a number of mechanism, one of them being Natural Selection".

 

Ok. Now that we have this underway, please....knock it down, Creationists.

 

I created this thread especially for you!

[invictus1967]

There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record that would indicate evolution.

 

There is some evidence of species adapting to their environment, but there is no evidence of a species evolving into a completely different species.

 

In the fossil record, when a new species appears it does so very abruptly. It simply appears.

 

The lack of fossil record evidence seemingly would indicate a lack of evolution.

 

Isn’t that the same argument used against Christians? “If you can’t prove God then He must not be real”. Sounds familiar doesn’t.

[Asimov]

There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record that would indicate evolution.

 

Nothing like the progressions from reptiles to mammals, or human evolution, or reptiles to birds....

 

what about genetic evidence? Do you accept that? Silent genes, ERV's..

There is some evidence of species adapting to their environment, but there is no evidence of a species evolving into a completely different species.

 

on contrare, my sweet frauline. We have many cases of speciation.

 

In the fossil record, when a new species appears it does so very abruptly. It simply appears.

 

Such as?

 

The lack of fossil record evidence seemingly would indicate a lack of evolution.

 

Well, you seem to just ignore every other piece of corroborating evidence that helps evolution.

 

Isn’t that the same argument used against Christians? “If you can’t prove God then He must not be real”. Sounds familiar doesn’t.

 

Uh...no.

[Mr. Neil]

Isn’t that the same argument used against Christians? “If you can’t prove God then He must not be real”. Sounds familiar doesn’t.

Strawman. That's not what we argue. What we argue is that with the lack of evidence, there is no justifiable reason to make a positive claim. Lack of evidence may not be proof of lack of existence, but that isn't a green light to make vacuous claims either.

 

Actually, what you're saying is not entirely true. There are forms in the fossil record that infer evolution. For example, Asia's tarbosaurus is a unique species which shares many morphological features with the North American tyrannosaurs.

 

You're only criticizing one piece of evidence, when in fact there is a whole convergence of evidence. It's not so much that certain animals just appear in the fossil record. There are entire families of similar animals that exist in common regions and show paths migration, on which these species adapted to new environments along the way. It's not just the fact that things start to exist in certain places, but that certain animals appear where similar animals happen to have existed prior.

 

For example, the tyrannosaurs that I just mentioned can be traced all the way from Asia, up through the Berring Straight, and down through Canada and the United States. And it's not just T-rexes. There's a whole family of tyrannosaurs, which are only forgotten, because they're less popular than the famous T-rex. You can't just go around claiming that something like T-rex didn't evolve because you didn't bother learning about tarbosaurus, daspletosaurus, or any of the other tyrannosaurs.

 

And keep in mind that this is but one example. The same is true for other species as well. Your criticism, there there is a lack of transitional fossils, is invalid. Ignore them all you want; transitional fossils do exist.

 

You're trying to create a problem that doesn't exist, basically. Take some time to actually learn about some of the species in the fossil record before you go repeating creationist garbage.

 

Evolution isn't dependant entirely on the fossil record, anyway. The genetic evidence is overwhelming. Species don't just share common traits. They also share similar DNA mistakes, such as random, functionless garbage DNA. What about endogenous retroviruses? These are lines of DNA that have put into our DNA by viruses. We share many of these with the chimps.

[Zach]

Invictus-

 

When you reference the "appearance" of different species in the fossil record, how do you explain their existence in certian geological layers, and not others?

 

Specifically, do you believe that the Christian god gradually created and destroyed various species throughout history?

 

Also, why have we not found human fossils in the most geologically ancient layers? If the creation hypothesis were true, then we should at least expect to find human fossils in the first layers.

[Flyby Stardancer]

In the fossil record, when a new species appears it does so very abruptly. It simply appears.

 

This also shows that you don't have a full understanding of the differences between gradual and punctual evolution (both of which have evidence in their favor), as well as a lack of understanding in the fossilization process.

 

Punctual evolution is heavily supported by the fossil record because it states that a new species will evolve rapidly due to extreme changes in environment, and then will come to an equilibrium and remain at that equilibrium for long periods of time. Thus, what you get in the fossil records, because the more transitional forms weren't around long enough and weren't plentiful long enough to have a favorable chance of being fossilized, while the new species (which was around for A LOT longer) has a much better chance of making it into the fossil record.

[invictus1967]

The probability of a functional “simple” cell forming by chance is considered to be worse than 1 in 10^57800 (10 to the power of 57800). That is 1 in a number with 57800 zeroes.

 

This is an extreme problem for evolutionist. To put this problem into perspective, Fred Hoyle, a British mathematician and astronomer, came up with an analogy. He said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time.

-F. Hoyle, ‘The big bang in astronomy’, New Scientist, 92(1280):527, 1981

 

And that is just for ONE of the 400 or proteins needed in the hypothetical minimum first cell proposed by evolutionist.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Then there are the missing links, consider these quotes:

 

"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation." ---Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495

 

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."

-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science

 

-----------------------------------

 

And my personal favorite from the father of evolution, Darwin himself:

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

-Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.167

[Asimov]

This also shows that you don't have a full understanding of the differences between gradual and punctual evolution (both of which have evidence in their favor), as well as a lack of understanding in the fossilization process.

 

Punctual evolution is heavily supported by the fossil record because it states that a new species will evolve rapidly due to extreme changes in environment, and then will come to an equilibrium and remain at that equilibrium for long periods of time. Thus, what you get in the fossil records, because the more transitional forms weren't around long enough and weren't plentiful long enough to have a favorable chance of being fossilized, while the new species (which was around for A LOT longer) has a much better chance of making it into the fossil record.

 

Need to clarify that rapidly means many thousands of years.

[Asimov]

The probability of a functional “simple” cell forming by chance is considered to be worse than 1 in 10^57800 (10 to the power of 57800). That is 1 in a number with 57800 zeroes.

 

This is an extreme problem for evolutionist. To put this problem into perspective, Fred Hoyle, a British mathematician and astronomer, came up with an analogy. He said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time.

-F. Hoyle, ‘The big bang in astronomy’, New Scientist, 92(1280):527, 1981

 

And that is just for ONE of the 400 or proteins needed in the hypothetical minimum first cell proposed by evolutionist.

 

1) Evolutionary Theory does not involve Abiogenesis. Evolution is biology and focuses on biological systems, not the origin of life. The origin of life is for Biochemistry and Biophysics.

 

2)Hoyle was an astronomer, and not exactly the most qualified to make that kind of statement, hence his moronic probability:

 

Sir Frederick Hoyle, who “showed” how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. I’d like to point out that Hoyle was an astronomer, and not, a biologist. His credentials equate to an english teacher trying to disprove complex mathematics.

 

Anyways, I will get into specifics about Hoyles argument. Hoyle tries to show that life is statistically improbable. He wrote about it in his book “Evolution From Space”. He says that the statistic of life coming about naturally is 10^40,000 (p.24). Specifically, he states that a 20 amino acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Hoyle leaves this out, but there is a minimum specificity of this one specific possibility. That is 10^20. Hoyle mentions it by saying "by itself, this small probability could be faced" Even though it doesn't account that any number of the first organisms could be a possibility in having enzymes come together. He then states that the problem is there are 2000 enzymes. And therefore the chance of obtaining them is (10^20)*2000=10^40,000There are three flaws in Hoyles conclusion:

 

1)Natural Selection is random.

 

2)That all 2000 enzymes had to be hit upon all at once.

 

3)That life began with complex enzymes working together.In answer to these flaws, natural selection is not random, but selective. It does not operate on chance, but on selecting what works from what doesn’t. What works moves on what doesn’t, doesn’t. Organisms do not use all 2000 enzymes, different organisms use different enzymes to function.

 

Biologists all agree that life before is not as complex as it is now, therefore even if organisms today used all 2000 enzymes, it is not logical to believe they did in the past. Furthermore, calculating statistical probability on past events is a rather dangerous thing to do, as you cannot possibly account for all the factors that are involved in calculating the probability, one could come up with any astronomical answer, that doesn’t make it true.

 

"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation." ---Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495

 

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."

-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science

 

.....so you have two scientists saying some stuff. What's your point? Where's your argument?? Why are you quote-mining and letting others argue for you? Be specific!

 

And my personal favorite from the father of evolution, Darwin himself:

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

-Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.167

 

In the next goddamned paragraph:

 

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

 

Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

 

Look it up if you don't believe me. The Origins of Species is available for free online.

[Mr. Neil]

The probability of a functional “simple” cell forming by chance is considered to be worse than 1 in 10^57800 (10 to the power of 57800). That is 1 in a number with 57800 zeroes.

 

This is an extreme problem for evolutionist. To put this problem into perspective, Fred Hoyle, a British mathematician and astronomer, came up with an analogy. He said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time.

-F. Hoyle, ‘The big bang in astronomy’, New Scientist, 92(1280):527, 1981

 

And that is just for ONE of the 400 or proteins needed in the hypothetical minimum first cell proposed by evolutionist.

So let me get this straight. To make an argument against evolution, you mine a quote from an astronomer, which criticizes abiogenesis.

 

Invictus, you've been on this forum before, and I'm really annoyed that you've learned nothing since the last time I've seen you. This isn't even a good argument, because that's not how abiogenesis works anyway. No one is saying that life just popped up off of a rock. The odds may be great for life to come from non-life, but for life to come from pre-biotic replicators... that's something else.

 

 

Then there are the missing links, consider these quotes:

 

"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation." ---Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495

 

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."

-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science

So instead of responding to what I typed, you just continue harping on missing links. Dude, evolution is not dependant upon missling links, which there are an abundance of. I gave you some examples! You're forgetting DNA evidence. Why don't you try actually making a real argument instead mining quotes.

 

Don't waste our fucking time.

 

 

And my personal favorite from the father of evolution, Darwin himself:

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

-Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.167

You're decades behind, dude. Dawkins thrashes this completely, and we now know that the eye is an organ that developed from light sensative brain cells.

 

These arguments are pathetic. Come on!

[Asimov]

lurking...but no reply....

[Flyby Stardancer]

Need to clarify that rapidly means many thousands of years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks. I keep forgetting these people don't even understand the basics of science and that when talking about fossils, rapidly doesn't mean the same thing as in normal-speech...

 

I'm such a beginner... But I'm learning lots about debate!

[Abiyoyo]

Alright you Creationists.  I hear a lot about evolution being a lie, false, unsupported, faith-based...blah blah blah.

 

First, let us define Evolution:

 

Massimo defined it very well:

 

"The claim that all living beings chare a common ancestor" and "The diversification of life is the result of a number of mechanism, one of them being Natural Selection".

 

Ok.  Now that we have this underway, please....knock it down, Creationists.

 

I created this thread especially for you!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Has anyone reserched the moon, and its assumed age by nasa. They intended to find much more dust on the moon. When they arrived they were surprised to find only inches of dust. They were making there assumptions based on the "evolution" theory from earth and its age. They expected a vastly large amount of this "time" referring dust on the moon based on the calculated age of earth.

[Flyby Stardancer]

Has anyone reserched the moon, and its assumed age by nasa. They intended to find much more dust on the moon. When they arrived they were surprised to find only inches of dust. They were making there assumptions based on the "evolution" theory from earth and its age. They expected a vastly large amount of this "time" referring dust on the moon based on the calculated age of earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh?

[invictus1967]

Where to begin???????

 

So much ammunition, so few targets to shot at. But…here goes.

 

The evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain how life evolved. It has at its foundation the “hope” that random events created life as we know it. I am amazed that you folks want to argue that.

 

My point (that you are trying to gloss over) is that from a statistical perspective, evolution is a gigantic leap of faith. Even hard-core evolutionists acknowledge that.

 

Moving on, Hoyle was a mathematician and his credentials can be equated to a mathematician giving an example to put a statistical probability into perspective.

 

Also, I never mentioned the complex life forms of today, I said for the “simple” cell. I also later referred to it as the “hypothetical minimum first cell”.

 

As for DNA, do you folks really understand what DNA is?????

It is the code for life.

 

Take a look at the probability of DNA resulting in haphazard chance. A viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard chance. The probability for this is believe to be 1 in 4.8 x 10^50 (10 to the power of 50). Written out that number is:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

Any mathematician will tell you that anything greater than a number beyond 10^50 has statically a zero chance. When you consider that the smallest single-cell bacteria have at least 3,000,000 nucleotides aligned is a very specific sequence, you must effectually wake up a smell the coffee (as the saying goes).

 

As for DNA proving anything, how about this- In 1987 a UC Berkeley group reported that DNA studies of a larger number of women worldwide show that they are all descended from a common female ancestor. Is this possibly Eve??????

 

In 1995 Dorit, et al., reported that paternally-inherited DNA studies of a representative cross section of the world’s male population show no variation, and hence all men are descended from a single male ancestor. Is this possibly Adam?????

 

Evolution at its core fails to explain how lifeless chemicals came to life. In reality, DNA fits very nicely into the creationist account. So, if you want to go forward with it, I assure you that could be a most interesting line for this debate.

 

Basically, you didn’t even try to refute my arguments. You assumed I have no intelligence and no understanding of evolution or science in general. You would be better served if you didn’t try to insult me or my intelligence.

[Vixentrox]

But somehow the probabilty of your magic sky being being the creator is so much better?

[Asimov]

The evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain how life evolved. It has at its foundation the “hope” that random events created life as we know it. I am amazed that you folks want to argue that.

 

Good thing it's not random events, whew!!

 

Moving on, Hoyle was a mathematician and his credentials can be equated to a mathematician giving an example to put a statistical probability into perspective.

 

Which I showed you was wrong.

 

Also, I never mentioned the complex life forms of today, I said for the “simple” cell. I also later referred to it as the “hypothetical minimum first cell”.

 

Hoyles argument was on proteins coming together to form a cell, it was flawed.

 

As for DNA, do you folks really understand what DNA is?????

It is the code for life.

 

Take a look at the probability of DNA resulting in haphazard chance. A viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard chance. The probability for this is believe to be 1 in 4.8 x 10^50 (10 to the power of 50). Written out that number is:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

Good thing DNA didn't just form!

 

Evolution at its core fails to explain how lifeless chemicals came to life. In reality, DNA fits very nicely into the creationist account. So, if you want to go forward with it, I assure you that could be a most interesting line for this debate.

 

I wonder why!!!!!!!! MAYBE BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!!

 

As I said before, Biochemistry and Biophysics study the origins of life.

 

Basically, you didn’t even try to refute my arguments. You assumed I have no intelligence and no understanding of evolution or science in general. You would be better served if you didn’t try to insult me or my intelligence.

 

What the fuck are you talking about??? You aren't even ADDRESSING evolution.

[Asimov]

Has anyone reserched the moon, and its assumed age by nasa. They intended to find much more dust on the moon. When they arrived they were surprised to find only inches of dust. They were making there assumptions based on the "evolution" theory from earth and its age. They expected a vastly large amount of this "time" referring dust on the moon based on the calculated age of earth.

 

 

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution, the earth is dated by geologists, not biologists. The moon dust argument is retarded.

 

 

#  The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.

 

The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.

[Fweethawt]

.... besides, we don't know what the moon is like anyway cuz we've never been there before that lunar landing stuff is all a big hoax just like darwin he never existed.

 

 

 

How'zat?

 

[Asimov]

.... besides, we don't know what the moon is like anyway cuz we've never been there before that lunar landing stuff is all a big hoax just like darwin he never existed.

How'zat?

 

 

this is serious business, fwee....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Antihero]

Where to begin???????

 

The evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain how life evolved. It has at its foundation the “hope” that random events created life as we know it. I am amazed that you folks want to argue that.

 

My point (that you are trying to gloss over) is that from a statistical perspective, evolution is a gigantic leap of faith. Even hard-core evolutionists acknowledge that.

 

Moving on, Hoyle was a mathematician and his credentials can be equated to a mathematician giving an example to put a statistical probability into perspective.

 

Also, I never mentioned the complex life forms of today, I said for the “simple” cell. I also later referred to it as the “hypothetical minimum first cell”.

 

As for DNA, do you folks really understand what DNA is?????

It is the code for life.

 

Take a look at the probability of DNA resulting in haphazard chance. A viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard chance. The probability for this is believe to be 1 in 4.8 x 10^50 (10 to the power of 50). Written out that number is:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

Any mathematician will tell you that anything greater than a number beyond 10^50 has statically a zero chance. When you consider that the smallest single-cell bacteria have at least 3,000,000 nucleotides aligned is a very specific sequence, you must effectually wake up a smell the coffee (as the saying goes).

 

Assuming that the creation of life is 1. totally random, and 2. only possible if it leads to this exact state. I don't know, but is anyone saying that the beginning of earthly life doesn't follow (some) rules for progression, and is the only way for life to exist?

 

 

As for DNA proving anything, how about this- In 1987 a UC Berkeley group reported that DNA studies of a larger number of women worldwide show that they are all descended from a common female ancestor. Is this possibly Eve??????

 

Reading as I have recently being from "The Science of Discworld II: The Globe" (Funny and interesting),

"There was, about thirty years ago, a brief fashion for the concept of 'mitochondiral Eve', and many media reports seem to have picked up the idea that there was just one woman, a veritable Eve, in that bottle neck. This is nonsense, but the media reports were written up to encourage the belief. The real story, as always, was a little more complicated, and goes like this. There are mitochondria ... billions-of-generations descendants... they still have some of their ancient DNA hereditiy, called mitochondrial DNA." They go "from the mother into the embryo's cells". They enable us to "judge how far back it is to the comman ancestor of any woman... suprisingly, nearly all such pairs from very different women converge on to a single consensus sequence, about 70,000 years ago. A single woman, ancestor of us all; Eve? ... it doesn't hang together. The occurance of just one mitochondrial DNA sequence doesn't mean just one woman... evidence based on the current diversity of various genes shows that there were at least 50,000 women in the human population 70,000 years ago, and many of them will have had that particular DNA sequence, or one that cannot be distinguished from it with the evidence remaining today"

 

It goes on to explain how we know that there were at least 100,000 humans 70,000 years ago and not two 6000 years ago (though as an aside, I don't know why christians latch onto that when their bible clearly states that there weren't just two...)

 

 

In 1995 Dorit, et al., reported that paternally-inherited DNA studies of a representative cross section of the world’s male population show no variation, and hence all men are descended from a single male ancestor. Is this possibly Adam?????

 

Never heard of it.

[Abiyoyo]

Huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Moon dust link,

http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html

[Flyby Stardancer]

The evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain how life evolved. It has at its foundation the “hope” that random events created life as we know it. I am amazed that you folks want to argue that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Evolution deals with pre-existing life. Period. It has nothing to do with how life got started. They are two seperate scientific theories.

 

My point (that you are trying to gloss over) is that from a statistical perspective, evolution is a gigantic leap of faith. Even hard-core evolutionists acknowledge that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I failed to see how how evolution is statistically impossible. You gave facts on abiogenesis. And while I agree that there is high statistics against it, there are ways to lower them, and the current theory does not line up with the model he was using. PLUS, it happened somewhere in about a billion years. That's a pretty long time for something that's statistically improbable to happen.

 

Moving on, Hoyle was a mathematician and his credentials can be equated to a mathematician giving an example to put a statistical probability into perspective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mathematicians do not necesarily understand all scientific concepts. Scientists are well-versed in math as well. Versed enough to do something like statistics, at least. I know that at my University, a biology major needs to have taken at least one calculas course. Other math classes can be used toward the degree as well. It's probably similar for all the other science majors as well, as math is very much an integral part of science. However, stating a mathematician knows everything about science is like calling a rectangle a square.

 

Also, I never mentioned the complex life forms of today, I said for the “simple” cell. I also later referred to it as the “hypothetical minimum first cell”.

 

As for DNA, do you folks really understand what DNA is?????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know very well what DNA is. We had to build a model of DNA in AP biology, and I got to do some testing with my own DNA, and got to insert DNA into bacteria. What was really cool was I found I had two bits of junk DNA (one from each of my parents) that I have a statistically low probability of having based on my ethnic makeup. There were even a couple kids in my class who had a VERY high probability of having it (somewhere in the 90%) who didn't have it.

 

It is the code for life.

 

Take a look at the probability of DNA resulting in haphazard chance. A viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard chance. The probability for this is believe to be 1 in 4.8 x 10^50 (10 to the power of 50). Written out that number is:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Barkin' up the wrong tree. There's a lot of thinking going into the possibility of strands of RNA coming before DNA.

 

As for DNA proving anything, how about this- In 1987 a UC Berkeley group reported that DNA studies of a larger number of women worldwide show that they are all descended from a common female ancestor. Is this possibly Eve??????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't have any links to back it up, but I remember a show saying that women could be traced to a FEW female ancestors (refered to as the daughters of Eve). And even if all human women came from one female ancestor, that doesn't automatically mean she was the Eve of the Bible.

 

In 1995 Dorit, et al., reported that paternally-inherited DNA studies of a representative cross section of the world’s male population show no variation, and hence all men are descended from a single male ancestor. Is this possibly Adam?????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doesn't necesarily mean it was Adam of the Bible.

 

Also, to elaborate, studies have shown that there is a bottleneck in human history. (Don't have the study names, alas, but it's in the Discovery Channel's documentary called Supervolcanoes). This could also explain the lack of variation in humans.

 

Evolution at its core fails to explain how lifeless chemicals came to life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're right. Evolution doesn't explain it. ABIOGENESIS is the theory you want to be harping on, not evolution. In posting this statement you show a lack of understanding of the different scientific theories about life. Theories which are quite independant of one another. This is what gets the science geeks here going: . When you've gotten your science basics down a bit better, please return so we may continue. As of now, you are showing a distinct lack of knowledge in the sciences.

 

In reality, DNA fits very nicely into the creationist account. So, if you want to go forward with it, I assure you that could be a most interesting line for this debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In reality, DNA evidence completely destroys any and all creationist arguments.

 

Basically, you didn’t even try to refute my arguments. You assumed I have no intelligence and no understanding of evolution or science in general. You would be better served if you didn’t try to insult me or my intelligence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I refuted your arguement against transitional fossils. I did not attempt to refute the quotes you posted (your "argument" was lacking any commentary. As I was continually told in my english classes for essays: for every line of evidence, you need two lines of commentary!) because I felt the others had done a decent enough job explaining why quotes alone do not constitute an argument, and why they were false.

 

Also, when you show some scientific understanding and respect for science, then I will be more curteous. Besides, my comment wasn't aimed directly at you.

[Asimov]

Allow me to quell the dumbass arguments of statistical improbability with "Pete Harcoff's Sock Drawer of Impossibilities"

 

Pete's Sock Drawer of Impossibility

 

With the arguments of the mathematical impossibility of evolution, I would like to postulate the mathematical impossibility of removing 10 socks from a sock drawer.

 

To start with, I have a drawer full of 100 socks. 90 are white, 10 are black. I wish to remove all 10 black socks from the sock drawer. The catch is, I have to remove them by picking socks at random. Furthermore, if I accidentally pick out a white sock, I have to chuck everything back in the drawer and start over. So how impossible is this?

 

The probability of picking the first black sock is 1 in 10. So not likely, but not farfetched. But with each black sock removed, the probability of picking the next one decreases. For example, the probability of the second black sock is 1 in 11. The probability of the third is 1 in 12.25. And so on.

 

Furthermore, because there is no margin for error, the total probability of picking out all 10 black socks in a row are the individual probabilities multiplied together. And the probability of doing such a thing is about 1 in 17300000000000 (assuming I didn't pooch the math). Even if you pulled out one sock per second, it would take you over 500000 years to run through all the possibilities.

 

Therefore, it's impossible to remove the 10 black socks.

 

But what's the problem with this scenario? Two things are missing: recursion and selection. Recursion is the process by which something is based on the previous results of a process. IOW, if I pull out a black sock there is nothing that says I must chuck it back in the drawer if I happen to pull out a white sock. A recursive process would allow me to "keep" any black socks. Second, selection would allow me to discard any white socks I happen to pick out by accident.

 

People that calculate impossible probabilities of evolution tend to ignore these two factors. To them, evolution becomes an "all or nothing" scenario. There is no room for error, no recursion, no selection. But evolution is not like that. The recursive nature of evolution means we are working with previous genetic code in the gene pool, not a blank slate. New organisms are based on previous organisms (just like you are based on the DNA of your parents; you didn't poof out of thin air). And natural selection exists and weeds out organisms less adapted to survive in a given environment, while preserving those that are more adapted.

 

So if one wishes to calculate the improbability of evolution, one must take into account selection and recursion. Otherwise, you ain't dealing with evolution.

 

http://www.christianforums.com/t1379634

[Asimov]

Just to add: If you add in the probability of picking out 10 specific socks, it becomes even more remote.