How did we get here?

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps there never was a common ancestor?

There most certainly was. Not knowing where that common ancestor came from in no way refutes that a common ancestor did exist.

No, what we have is animals and organisms just appearing out of nowhere.

Haven't your parents taught you about the birds and the bees?

There is no common ancestor to be found because there is no common ancestor.

Yes, there is.

"First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

We share thousands and thousands of these orthologous ERV's with other primates. The evidence is clear. We share a common ancestor with other primates. This evidence doesn't vanish simply because we don't know where the first life came from.

According to you, we can't even use DNA parternity tests because we don't know where the first life came from. How does that make any sense?

All there is is life appearing on the scene, and many life forms at one time!

Where do we see that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have yet met a Creationist here that doesn't walk in lockstep with their dogma.None are unique nor do I think they want to be.

Join Date: 24th February 2011

I can show you someone who has been called 'backwater'.

 

[KimberlyAA]

Just thought I'd mention this. Some interesting quotes from the book "A Closer Look At The Evidence" by Richard and Tina Kleiss.

Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10*340,000,000. By comparison only 10*20 grains of sand could fit within a cubic mile and 10 billion times more (10*30) would fit inside the entire earth. So, the probability of forming a simple cell by chance processes is infinitely less likely than having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand.

"The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules. Each of these molecules performs specific functions by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact three-dimensional spatial arrangements. These proteins work like a key fitting into a lock -- only a specifically shaped protein will fit. Yet there are multiple trillions of possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How could the exactly required shape find the exactly correct corresponding protein in order to perform the required cellular function?

Most scientists acknowledge that any possibility less than one in 10*50 is considered an impossibility.

* - to the power of

 

[Loudmouth]

The simplest conceivable form of life (eg. bacteria) contains at least 600 different protein molecules.

Sorry, but this disqualifies the calculations right from the beginning. Nowhere did they demonstrate that this is the simplest life form possible. For all we know, the simplest lifeform will not have proteins at all but RNA enzymes instead.

What you have posted is a set of calculations made from false premises. This makes the calculations worthless.

 

[sfs]

Just thought I'd mention this. Some interesting quotes from the book "A Closer Look At The Evidence" by Richard and Tina Kleiss.

Not really very interesting, I'm afraid.

1) No scientist suggests that a fully-formed bacterium sprang from a random combination of molecules, so that calculation is pointless.

2) There are indeed trillions (upon trillions) of different possible proteins. Many, many of them, however, have overlapping functionality, and you can vary many proteins quite a lot and still have it be reasonably functional. It's simply not true that you have to have exactly the right proteins. So these numbers also don't mean anything.

3) Any scientist who considers an event with a probability less than 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup] to be impossible is an idiot. Exercise: take two standard decks of cards with differently colored backs (so you can tell them apart). Shuffle them. Congratulations: you have just done the impossible! The probability of producing that order of cards is less than 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup].

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not really very interesting, I'm afraid.

Well, it's interesting in the sense that it shows just the kind of misinformation that creationists are willing to accept -- and peddle.

1) No scientist suggests that a fully-formed bacterium sprang from a random combination of molecules, so that calculation is pointless.

2) There are indeed trillions (upon trillions) of different possible proteins. Many, many of them, however, have overlapping functionality, and you can vary many proteins quite a lot and still have it be reasonably functional. It's simply not true that you have to have exactly the right proteins. So these numbers also don't mean anything.

3) Any scientist who considers an event with a probability less than 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup] to be impossible is an idiot. Exercise: take two standard decks of cards with differently colored backs (so you can tell them apart). Shuffle them. Congratulations: you have just done the impossible! The probability of producing that order of cards is less than 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup].

Final score: Facts -- 3; Richard and Tina Kleiss -- 0.

 

[sfs]

3) Any scientist who considers an event with a probability less than 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup] to be impossible is an idiot. Exercise: take two standard decks of cards with differently colored backs (so you can tell them apart). Shuffle them. Congratulations: you have just done the impossible! The probability of producing that order of cards is less than 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup].

Mmph. I was too generous. You need the two decks for a probability less than 1/10[sup]150[/sup]. For 1/10[sup]50[/sup] you just need a single deck.

 

[freezerman2000]

Join Date: 24th February 2011

I can show you someone who has been called 'backwater'.

What does my join date have to do with it..
Backwater? Don't have any idea what you are implying.

 

[good brother]

Exercise: take two standard decks of cards with differently colored backs (so you can tell them apart). Shuffle them. Congratulations: you have just done the impossible! The probability of producing that order of cards is less than 1 in 10[sup]50[/sup].

The disorganization of taking the cards from order to a shuffled up disordered mess hardly demonstrates the ability for proteins to arrange themselves in such a complex order as to produce life. Sure, it may be a 1 in 10 to the whateverth power, but it does nothing to organize. One could shuffle the cards hundreds of millions of times and never get the same sequence. The question is not that. The goal would be taking a disorganized double deck of cards and shuffling them into numerical and alternating color order. That would be the goal that is looked forward to, not just a random pile of cards.

In Christ, GB

 

[Loudmouth]

The disorganization of taking the cards from order to a shuffled up disordered mess hardly demonstrates the ability for proteins to arrange themselves in such a complex order as to produce life.

Where did you demonstrate that proteins are even necessary for producing life?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The disorganization of taking the cards from order to a shuffled up disordered mess hardly demonstrates the ability for proteins to arrange themselves in such a complex order as to produce life.

Define "life."

Sure, it may be a 1 in 10 to the whateverth power, but it does nothing to organize. One could shuffle the cards hundreds of millions of times and never get the same sequence. The question is not that. The goal would be taking a disorganized double deck of cards and shuffling them into numerical and alternating color order. That would be the goal that is looked forward to, not just a random pile of cards.

Looked forward to by whom?


And, out of the 10^50 possible combinations, is not numerical and alternating color order one of them?

 

[sfs]

The disorganization of taking the cards from order to a shuffled up disordered mess hardly demonstrates the ability for proteins to arrange themselves in such a complex order as to produce life. Sure, it may be a 1 in 10 to the whateverth power, but it does nothing to organize. One could shuffle the cards hundreds of millions of times and never get the same sequence. The question is not that. The goal would be taking a disorganized double deck of cards and shuffling them into numerical and alternating color order. That would be the goal that is looked forward to, not just a random pile of cards.

I responded to a specific claim, namely that scientists consider events with probabilities below a certain bound to be impossible. That claim was wrong, as trivially shown by the deck of cards. If you want to make an argument that the set of proteins needed for any kind of life is too improbable, by all means make it -- but it's a different argument. Suggestion: start by determining all of the possible minimal sets of proteins, based on any possible set of amino acids, needed for life. (This is leaving out non-protein forms of life, of course.) I won't bother suggesting the second step, since no one has a clue how to carry out the first step.

 

[mzungu]

You want to know what I want? I want you to tell me where you think that supposed first and common ancestor came from. If you can't do that then you need to move on to another thread. This thread is for the discussion of that, which no evolutionist has seemed to be able to do so.

Thank you again for your cooperation in this thread.


In Christ, GB

The answer to your BAITED question is simply "We do not know". The science of Abiogenesis is working on it and when we have some empirical evidence then we will let you know ok?

But do not expect us to supplant biology with talking snakes, flat earth, flowers before light, etc.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The disorganization of taking the cards from order to a shuffled up disordered mess hardly demonstrates the ability for proteins to arrange themselves in such a complex order as to produce life. Sure, it may be a 1 in 10 to the whateverth power, but it does nothing to organize. One could shuffle the cards hundreds of millions of times and never get the same sequence. The question is not that. The goal would be taking a disorganized double deck of cards and shuffling them into numerical and alternating color order. That would be the goal that is looked forward to, not just a random pile of cards.

In Christ, GB

But scrambelling proteins (enzymes) is used to improve their activity in research and industry. Read up on enzyme optimization, DNA shuffling and directed evolution. By taking genes for enzymes with a desired activity then inducing random mutations (error prone PCR) to build a library of mutant enzymes you can make new versions of the enzyme that are far more potent than the original "wild" enzyme.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does my join date have to do with it..
Backwater? Don't have any idea what you are implying.

QV please:

5. Thinking you and your backwater church...

- because whatever your backwater church teaches is NOT standard Christian doctrine,

And since "backwater" means "unique", I'll take this statement ...

None are unique nor do I think they want to be.

... with a grain of salt.

 

[Belk]

QV please:


And since "backwater" means "unique", I'll take this statement ...

... with a grain of salt.

No, "backwater" means provincial or rural, out of the mainstream. It is in no way synonymous with "unique".

 

[rush1169]

GB - you again asked a question that no naturalist can answer (the other being how did fruit evolve?). Why it takes 16 pages of mostly off-topic responses to dodge a question is, well, boring. I'm often in awe at scientific production. From the revelation of the creation event of the Big Bang to self-balancing motorcycles to defining the composition of protons, it's all truely mind-blowing what humans are learning and doing.

Given what science knows and can do, I often wonder why life cannot be created in a lab. We know the components and how they are assembled. Maybe we just don't have the technology to arrange everything correctly or maybe science has arranged everything and it didn't work. I don't know. If the day comes that life is created in a lab, I'd guess it will be a copy of existing life rather that something new, but it'll be an interesting start and certainly educational. I think it'll happen some day, but I think it will actually add to the uncertainty of the origin of life question.

At any rate, the obvious answer to the question of life origins to a naturalist is "I have no idea." Strangely, when potential reasons are brought up that explain why a naturalist has no idea, those points are dismissed as non-points. For example, when scientists discuss the unlikelihood of a natural random occurrance of the correct arrangement of components as a reason why natural processes may not be the answer, naturalists argue that 10^50+ isn't that big of a deal. Wash, rinse, repeat for every other perfectly dialed-in 'natural' occurance needed for life to even exist. There are literally hundreds of perfect arrangements identified and required to be 'just so' for the existance of life.

I can easily understand how one, sans a creator, can simply shrug and say, "Eh, well it all just fell into place. Odds are against it, but it happened and so it is the way it is - let's move on to stuff we can fathom." Creation is outside the realm of serious contemplation for many naturalists, although as a group they seem to be well above average in intelligence. It makes sense though that until science produces enough cumulative knowledge to at least propose a theory of abiogenesis naturalists stand aside until they can intelligently answer the question (ie parrot science papers). There is nothing wrong with that approach, although naturalists alive today will probably be dead before they have even a plausible answer (as have all deceased naturalists in the past).

How did the universe create itself?

How did life come from non-life?

How did humans become so vastly different than animals?

How did the earth last for 4B years, but now is certainly coming to an abrupt end? Ironically, just after humans appear but not necessarily because humans appeared.

Rhetorical for naturalists, but fascinating to creationists. I enjoy your probing questions GB, I just wish you could delete off-topic, diversionary posts to keep my reading time under control

 

[Loudmouth]

For example, when scientists discuss the unlikelihood of a natural random occurrance of the correct arrangement of components as a reason why natural processes may not be the answer, naturalists argue that 10^50+ isn't that big of a deal.

Actually, we are arguing that no one knows what the correct arrangements are, nor how many there are, so these calculations are meaningless.

I can easily understand how one, sans a creator, can simply shrug and say, "Eh, well it all just fell into place. Odds are against it, but it happened and so it is the way it is - let's move on to stuff we can fathom."

You are failing to realize our true position. If the universe was created we would be extremely excited to find that out. What we require is EVIDENCE. So far, we can't find any evidence for the supernatural. What we keep finding are natural mechanisms. There is every expectation that this trend will continue, and following this trend has been spectacularly successful.

It makes sense though that until science produces enough cumulative knowledge to at least propose a theory of abiogenesis naturalists stand aside until they can intelligently answer the question (ie parrot science papers).

Shouldn't the same apply to creationists?

How did the universe create itself?

We don't even know if a universe has to create itself. Asking how a universe can create itself is a bit like asking how a cloud can create itself. It ignores the possibility that there are mechanisms outside of the universe that are responsible for new universes coming about.

How did life come from non-life?

We don't know, but are working on it.

How did humans become so vastly different than animals?

Firstly, we aren't that different from other animals. Secondly, the differences that do exist are due to a difference in DNA. Of the DNA that we share through common ancestry only 2% of the bases have changed, and we are 5% different if you include DNA that has been inserted or deleted since we shared a common ancestor. The answer to your questions is that we are different because our DNA is different, and evolution is responsible for those differences.

How did the earth last for 4B years, but now is certainly coming to an abrupt end?

The Earth has lasted for 4B years because nothing has destroyed it, and I am unaware of any impending catastrophe that will destroy the Earth. The only upcoming catastrophic event that I am aware the expansion of the Sun into a red dwarf which will occur in about 5 billion years.

 

[mzungu]

GB - you again asked a question that no naturalist can answer (the other being how did fruit evolve?). Why it takes 16 pages of mostly off-topic responses to dodge a question is, well, boring. I'm often in awe at scientific production. From the revelation of the creation event of the Big Bang to self-balancing motorcycles to defining the composition of protons, it's all truely mind-blowing what humans are learning and doing.

Given what science knows and can do, I often wonder why life cannot be created in a lab. We know the components and how they are assembled. Maybe we just don't have the technology to arrange everything correctly or maybe science has arranged everything and it didn't work. I don't know. If the day comes that life is created in a lab, I'd guess it will be a copy of existing life rather that something new, but it'll be an interesting start and certainly educational. I think it'll happen some day, but I think it will actually add to the uncertainty of the origin of life question.

At any rate, the obvious answer to the question of life origins to a naturalist is "I have no idea." Strangely, when potential reasons are brought up that explain why a naturalist has no idea, those points are dismissed as non-points. For example, when scientists discuss the unlikelihood of a natural random occurrance of the correct arrangement of components as a reason why natural processes may not be the answer, naturalists argue that 10^50+ isn't that big of a deal. Wash, rinse, repeat for every other perfectly dialed-in 'natural' occurance needed for life to even exist. There are literally hundreds of perfect arrangements identified and required to be 'just so' for the existance of life.

I can easily understand how one, sans a creator, can simply shrug and say, "Eh, well it all just fell into place. Odds are against it, but it happened and so it is the way it is - let's move on to stuff we can fathom." Creation is outside the realm of serious contemplation for many naturalists, although as a group they seem to be well above average in intelligence. It makes sense though that until science produces enough cumulative knowledge to at least propose a theory of abiogenesis naturalists stand aside until they can intelligently answer the question (ie parrot science papers). There is nothing wrong with that approach, although naturalists alive today will probably be dead before they have even a plausible answer (as have all deceased naturalists in the past).

How did the universe create itself?

How did life come from non-life?

How did humans become so vastly different than animals?

How did the earth last for 4B years, but now is certainly coming to an abrupt end? Ironically, just after humans appear but not necessarily because humans appeared.

Rhetorical for naturalists, but fascinating to creationists. I enjoy your probing questions GB, I just wish you could delete off-topic, diversionary posts to keep my reading time under control

Give it time my friend, give it time: BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

 

[TLK Valentine]

Give it time my friend, give it time: BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

Oh goody -- something new for the fundies to panic over.