Chance and evolution

Sorry, but the calculations are an example of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out.

1. Modern cells are the end product of 3.8 billion years of evolution and evolution is NOT chance. Thus, having everything "fit" is because only those individuals that did fit a little bit were selected for. Selection is a great way to convert "impossible" odds to virtual certainty.

2. Many, many proteins will do the same job. Look at cytochrome c, for example. It is in every organism that uses oxygen. That's millions of species, and most of them have their own unique cytochrome c. Yet each one works.

3. Actually proteins are produced by ribosomes, which do sit on the endoplasmic reticulum and the combination of ribosome and endoplasmic reticulum is called the rough endoplasmic reticulum (RER for short). Proteins come out of the ribosome and then into the ER. Often the ER is folded over to form what is called the Golgi apparatus. In the Golgi many if not most proteins have sugar molecules added. This helps perform the targeting. But some proteins bind chemically to other proteins and this provides the targeting.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

LOL, I am a distortion of atheism.

Dont you love it when people who dont know what they are talking about, tell you that you dont know what your belief really is?


Ever heard of virtual particles. They come from "nothing." Not every effect has a cause.

What created god?
Let me guess, god "just exists" or god is infinite.

So, why cant the universe "just exist" or why cant the universe be infinite?

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Because selection is the opposite of chance. It is pure determinism.

Cells don't need lysosomes to live. Bacteria don't have them. Proteins can also form from chemical reactions, and those proteins do the same thing that proteins made by living organisms do. Life is nothing but a series of chemical reactions.

Now you are getting into something different. Not science, but ethics and morals. Science isn't morals. Science tells you what you can do. But science can't tell you what you ought to do. That has to come from a system of ethics. You can disagree with the ethics, but the ethics are not evolution.

Now you are equating evolution with atheism. It is not. Let me repeat that shouting at the top of my lungs an inch from your nose:

EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM!

The purpose of life to an "evolutionist" is whatever his personal belief system may be: theist, agnostic, or atheist and all the gradations of each. "Purpose" and "meaning" of life are not part of science and not part of evolution. You must find those from some source outside of science.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

You've got some math here, but where's the logic? (and the scientific method is completely absent, BTW) You can't reverse engineer events like this...it makes no sense. By your reasoning the liklihood of person A then person B then person C , etc winning a lottery is zero...this is nonsense (and hardly scientific gnarly). Similarly if you take a look at quantum events, we would have every single outcome being individually impossible according to your logic. Maybe you should think more carefully about these things before you post.

This is a good testament to your faith. As a Christian I can appreciate what you are saying here. But then how does evolution fit into this testamony? Isn't that what this thread is all about?

Make no mistake gnarly, you can be a Christian and still accept evolutionary science. None of the beliefs you have specified here are violated by it.

Arikay did offer the cop-out definition of atheism. Atheism is the belief that god/gods/deity does not exist. As part of atheism, atheists believe that the material world is all there is.

However, that does not mean that atheists cannot derive a meaning or purpose to life. You don't have to have a belief in deity in order to find purpose and meaning to life.

A misstatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics. That law, like every scientific law, only applies IN the universe. It doesn't apply to getting a universe to begin with.

Arikay gave one way of getting a universe without God. There are at least 3 others. As far as science is concerned, God may have created the universe, but it is not certain that He did so.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Because the data says the universe is 1) not infinite and 2) had a beginning. Logic says that the universe had to have a cause. However, that First Cause does not have to have a cause. That's why you are so attracted to quantum fluctuations. It can be a beginning to the universe without having a cause itself.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

What part of Christian theology instructs you to judge like this?

But that is why many Christians believe that the Big Bang gives us irrefutable proof that God exists. While the argument itself is somewhat speculative, it nontheless shows that a BB is not in conflict with Christianity.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Do you think these arguments will convince any of the atheists that hang around here? Take a careful look at the science, present your questions, and we can discuss it.

Well, the data as far as we can see says the universe that we see is not infinite. Unfortunatly the problem with first cause to begin with is that things start to get very fuzzy as we get close to it.

As you said, quantum fluctuations could have been a first cause.

From the small bit I understood of what I was reading, there is a possibility that the universe is finite in real time, but infinite in imaginary time.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

First Cause demands and uncaused cause. Therefore it is illegitimate to demand "what caused God" as it is to demand "what caused quantum fluctuations". The question is "What caused the universe to exist." If the answer is "Deity created it" then that is the answer. That we don't know where deity came from doesn't alter that it is the answer to the question.


IF there is "imaginary time", then the universe is finite but unbounded. Now, in this case, what Hawking means by "imaginary time" is that, for a while after the BB, time and the 3 space dimensions were not distinguishable but all were the same.

Hawking's best analogy for finite but unbounded is the surface of a sphere. It is finite but you never come to an "end" of the sphere becaues you simply keep walking around it.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

You cleary do not know the history of evolution. There are 250 creation biologist alone. Explains your idea of scientists being not realistic. If you an evolutionists and athiest, why not lie to help supprt your belief, it doesnt matter if you do or not, you wont get punished, but in the frame work of christianity, lying is punishable. It wont let me post my websites.

Let me help you. First of all sciencitists selectively select what they look at. Also this was said by an evolution scientist. (many mistakes will follow but read best as you can)

If as evolutionary theory claims 1 species gradually evolved into another we would surely expect intermidiate forms. Fish that began to be amphibians. Retiles that started to grow wings. The fossil record is cited by evolutionists as support for their theory. Actaully it is rather embarassing to the theory of evolution. And provide support for the concept of direct special creation. If evolution was true then the fossil record would begin with every simple forms of life and gradually evolve into more complex forms of life. ALso if the evolutionary theory was correct you would expect to find tremendous intermidiate forms or transitional forms. On the other hand if creation were true we would expect no transitonal forms between created kinds or basic types of plants or animals. Lets understand the fossil recordand know what it reveals. In cambrain rocks which evolutionists meiantian they wre laid down about 600 million years ago. We find a extraordinary assortment of very complexforms of life. for examlpe we find trilobites, they are so complex evolutionists say it took around 2,000 million years to evolve. If all of this is true in the precambrain rocks, which are generally under cambrain formations, we must see evolutionary ancestors of those complex incertraebrates, many of these rocks aer undistrubed nd perfectly suitible for preservation of fossils. What do we find in these precambrian rocks? Certainly we can say no one has ever been able to find the evolutionary ancestors of these precambrain animals. none for sponges, jellyfish, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, brachipods, worms or any of the other cambrain animal have an evolutionary ancestor. They found what they think to be microscopic bacteria single celled organisms but NO transitional forms have been found, ever. We would expect this from creation. Now evolutionists believe invertabrates gave birth to vertebrates and fishes were the first vertebrates. They believe this tansiton tokk about 100 millio years, if thats true then we should expect to find a vast amount of these "in between" forms. We find not one single transitonal form from invertebrates to vertebrates. Fishes all appear to be fully formed in the fossils without evolutionary ancestors. So we are left with the same conclusion regarding the rest of the fossil record. No intermidiate types between invertebrates to verterates. No intermidiate types between fish and amphibian. No intermidiate types between amphibians and reptiles. No intermidiate types between reptiles and mammals. To make a long complex stroy a bit shorter there have been No intermidiate types found anywhere in the world neither living nor fossil. Couldnt we have missed them or overlooked them thouhg? Lets look at 1 step that could hardly by overlooked. Developement of flight. The abiltiy of flight is amazing and requires a coordination of muscle, brain, and bone. Which itself points to a creator. (Once a bird was taken from its home in one continent and taken to boston a sceinctist let it go and put a radio frequency color on it and allowed it to fly 12 days, the bird flew 3000 miles right back to the same exact nest it got out of. A brain size of 2 peas.) but evolution says flight came form time, chance, and a struggle for survivial. Flight actually occurs in 4 groups, insects, mammals, birds and reptiles. When it occurs in insects from fossils, its wings completely developed just like the ones we have today, when it comes to the fflying reptiles, the tarradactles (horribly mispelled) They had huge wings made of membranes that would stretch out as far as far as 52 feet. Surely if these forms would have evolved from runnin reptiles ther eought to be 100s of these transitonal forms. From leg to wing. When it comes to the mammals the bats ate one of the most highly complex mammals but nin the fossil record and look exaclty like the kinds we have today. When it comes to these groups evidence points clearly to creation. If evolution were true we must see transitsonal forms of which we see none. When it comes to the birds the evolutionists think they have found 1 example of the missing links. It is an unusal bird named archeoptrix (I think that is how its spelled). Now archeoptrix's feathers ;ole a bird but on the wings there are claws. There is no keel down the breast bone in the bill is teeth. These thins we would normally would expect in a reptile. Lets take a closer loo. When you take a look at the teeth we fins sure enough no living birds have teeth but come fossil birds do, some reptiles do some dont, a characteristic of reptiles which is nothing important. In distinguishing the 2 claws on the wing some living brids have claws on their wings, ostrich. Lack of a keel, turns out that archeoptrix has an extremely roboust wish bone that were the muscles attach for the power stroke in flight. As a matter of fact a feather shows the shaft down the leading edge, a characteristic of strong fliers. In fact most secientists dont even regard archeoptrix as primitive, but a stong flier. What about the transiton from leg to wing? Again we have here a fully develpoed and completely functional wing, no hint as to how legs could develope into wings. Even the feathers are completely deceloped having the little hoks and eyelits holding them together. Once agian no hint on how scales evolved into wings. AS a matter of fact we found ones of regular birds in the same geological formation as those of archeoptri, therefore specimiens of archeoptrix could not have been an ancestor of thiose birds. It looks like the evidence points to creation once agian. As we see different kinds of birds of many varities existing right from there 1st appearance in the fossil sequence. About the only other example evolutionists can use is the horse. In this case it seems like there might be a transitional form form one kind to antoher. THe story invisions evolution from a small animal having many toes into a fairly lard animal into only one toe. More detailed information has forced us to discard this idea. When it comes to size difference we find that bit crucial. It is possible to breed horses that are only 15 inches tall. What about the so called dawn horse? We now know that it isnt a horse at all but a rock badger or coney. What scientists would call a highrack (mispelled i think). THe scientific name for it is for the dawn horse is highrackotheorim an ancestor not of the horse but of the rock badgers that are on earth today. what about the toe number, again all inbetween forms are found burried in the same exact geological formation which indicates since they lived together couldnt be each others ancestors.Its more like a seen of what we might see by an african water hole were animals of many sizes and shapes with few toes to many toes all living together at the same time.

But if evolution is true, it relies on the big bang, the big bang is the question not the ecolutionary theory. Evolution is a process after the big bang, How can anything come from nothing?