JILLIONS of Creation proof!

Jet Black said:

take plumbing out of a city and see what happens. New York is irreducibly complex, therefore it was always just like it is now, right?

Click to expand...

Ewwwwww, spare me!

Paul-martin said:

Explain what abiogenisis is thx....

Click to expand...

Evolution theory only starts at the first life. It only explains how the present diversity of life came to exist after life was already there.

So we are left with the explanation of how this life came to be from non-living materials. This is explained by abiogenesis.

Now, if you look at this, it should be clear to you that, if you give an argument against abiogenesis, it doesn't hurt evolution in any way. It doesn't really matter how life came to be, it just is there and from there it starts evolving.

This explanation clear to you?

For those who do not know what I speak, I refer to the organelles - general science holds that they were at first individual organisms. Let's take an elephant, a human, a dog, a cat and make the first super-cell

Click to expand...

Please explain what is wrong with the endosymbiont theory, other than your personal belief that it sounds silly.

peschitta_enthusiast said:

The very idea that the first cell was produced by little organisms coming together and deciding to collaborate to form one life-form is preposterous. It is grossly unscientific, and is yet to have any eveidence for it

Click to expand...

There's lots of evidence. Mitochondria and chloroplasts contain material (RNA, enzymes, ribosomes, proteins, etc) that is very similar to that of prokaryotic cells. The organelle structures and methods of division are also typical of prokaryotic cells.

As for organisms not being able to "cooperate" and make a larger creature... You might want to have a talk with all of the (prokaryotic) bacteria living in your intestines. They'll die without you, and you'll be very, VERY sick without them.

Very sneaky my friend! Yet it remains that we are distinct organisms. We are talking about organisms of old "giving up their life" and becoming organelles as a collective being. Very different you sneaky haha

Click to expand...

Lichens consist of an algae symbiont, and a fungi symbiont and are totally reliant on each other than for reproduction which occurs seperately. They could be considered to be halfway between a total endosymbiotic relationship, as with chloroplasts and mitochondria. They are on their way to "giving up their life".

No conclusive evidence for it. It is just a theory. The whole evolution thing is based on one theory after the other. Yet this very simple base has no real evidence.

Click to expand...

from http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW1/MG1378.html :

-The RNA polymerases of organelles resemble those of eubacteria more than they do those of eucaryotes. Bacterial and organelle polymerases are sensitive to the same inhibitors and insensitive to inhibitors of eucaryotic RNA polymerases.

-Organelle protein synthesis is sensitive to the same inhibitors that inhibit protein synthesis in eubacteria and insensitive to some that inhibit cytoplasmic protein synthesis. Organelle and bacterial ribosomes are more similar to each other than either are to cytoplasmic ribosomes of eucaryotes.

-Phylogenetic analysis of small subunit rRNA nucleotide sequences suggested that mitochondrial rDNA shared a common ancestor with modern endosymbiotic bacteria (ricketsia, Agrobacterium, Rhizobium).

-Similarly, 16S rDNA phylogenetic analysis suggests that most plastid rDNA genes shared common ancestors with a cyanobacterium. Euglena and Chlamydomonas rDNAs probably arose from a different ancestral cyanobacterial rDNA..

-Intrageneric comparisons of organelle genomes reveal some species with the same gene in both organelle and nuclear genomes. One or the other may be inactive. Occasionally an active gene may be in the organelle for one species and in the nucleus for another of the same family.


from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_hypothesis :

Evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts arose via an ancient endosymbiosis of a bacteria is as follows:

-Both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain DNA which is fairly different from that of the cell nucleus, and in a quantity similar to that of bacteria. Further, they are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition compared to the other membranes in the cell. This is consistent with a cellular origin.
-New mitochondria and chloroplasts are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the chloroplasts can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the chloroplasts will not regenerate.
-Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of chloroplasts, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenies built with bacteria, chloroplasts, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that chloroplasts are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
DNA sequence analysis and phylogeny suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from the chloroplast.
-Some genes encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and chloroplasts have unusually small genomes compared to other organisms. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis.
-Chloroplasts appear in very different groups of protists, which are in general more closely related to forms lacking them than to each other. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated as part of the cell, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.


What is wrong with this evidence ? How would you interpret it differently ?

No conclusive evidence for it. It is just a theory. The whole gravity thing is based on one theory after the other. Yet this very simple base has no real evidence.

No conclusive evidence for it. It is just a theory. The whole germ thing is based on one theory after the other. Yet this very simple base has no real evidence.

No conclusive evidence for it. It is just a theory. The whole electricity thing is based on one theory after the other. Yet this very simple base has no real evidence.

iamshannon said:

I love this topic! I'm an editor and I work in the science department. I'm the only conservative around so I take a beating about it. But evolution is just the craziest idea. It takes more faith to believe it than it does to believe creation.

Wow. Scientists amaze me.

Click to expand...

If you work in a science department you have access to the Internet, right? Go to PubMed. enter "evolution" as your search term. Pureone is off by a factor of 10. There are over 160,000 articles with data supporting evolution. All that data and you still think it is "faith"?

Or are you one of those that think evolution is another word for "atheism"?

peschitta_enthusiast said:

And what replicated before RNA?

Click to expand...

Since RNA can be made from nucleotides, RNA is the first replicator.

Also, proteins replicate, too.

Also, that statement is true, evolution has never been proven. Even secular scientists oppose it.

Click to expand...

By all standards, evolution has been proven. http://www.christianforums.com/t155626
All creationists can find are 100 scientists, only about 10 of whom have any training in biology, who oppose evolution. In contrast, NCSE has over 700 scientists named "Steve" who support it. So, forget the "opposition" thing. It's creationist fantasy.

there is too much wrong with it, like the many many missing links.

Click to expand...

But have one series of transitional links shows creationism to be false, doesn't it? http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

Also, with evolution, there is the added "benefit" that you want to believe it, to take away God, to take away accountability.

Click to expand...

LOL! Evolution does not take away God. Look at what Darwin wrote and tell us how God is eliminated by evolution. More misinformation. There should be a special circle in hell for con men like those at the site you posted.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Do note that we are NOT dealing with infinite time

Click to expand...

Don't need it. Natural selection is a method for cutting down odds and time required.

Paul-martin said:

No it haven't, after what we know today the building block could not apear on earth because of our atmosphere.

Click to expand...

Nope. The Miller-Urey reactions work in an oxidizing atmosphere also. Another violation of hte 9th commandment the professional creationists have passed off on you.

1. Kawamoto K, Akaboshi H. Study on the chemical evolution of low molecular weight compounds in a highly oxidized atmosphere using electical discharges. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 12: 133-141, 1982.

peschitta_enthusiast said:

As for aging of fossils etc, that is a joke. Present-day molluscs have been aged to be THOUSANDS of years old, showing how unreliable dating methods are.

Click to expand...

What it shows is that you can't use C14 dating on living animals. Especially animals who get the carbon from non-living sources. You need some good sources on radiometric dating. But even without radiometric dating, other methods of dating are reliable:
1. http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/stratigraphy.html

1. http://www.c14dating.com/
2. http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
4. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
5. http://www.californiaprehistory.com/radiodb3.html
6. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
7. http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html K-Ar dating intro
8. http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-4.htm K-Ar pressure quote
9. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Paul-martin said:

I wasn't talking about dna, for life to appear in earth there must have been condition for the buliding block of life to appear like amino acid, but at the time we didn’t had that atmosphere, which mean that the hydrogen molecules would been destroyed of the by the Ultraviolet radiation form the sun.



This is just one of many problem......

Click to expand...

Uh, you just said earth had an atomosphere at the time. It may not have had an ozone layer (but probably did, since ozone is formed by light acting on oxygen), but water vapor and water will protect from UV light just as well.

By the way, hydrogen is an element. It exists as H2. If H2 is broken by UV, it will recombine with other compounds, so UV can be used as the impetus for some of the synthesis!

Either you really misunderstood or the whoppers you are being told are even worse than the normal whoppers we see professional creationists leading poor Chrisitians like you astray.

peschitta_enthusiast said:

The very idea that the first cell was produced by little organisms coming together and deciding to collaborate to form one life-form is preposterous. It is grossly unscientific, and is yet to have any eveidence for it

Click to expand...

It's not "organisms", but chemicals. Abiogenesis is the result of chemical reactions.

But it's already happened. You can do it in your kitchen. Here's just some of the data on how you get living cells (called protocells) from non-living amino acids. Pappelis A, Fox SW. Domain Protolife. Journal of Biological Physics 20: 129-132, 1994.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199907/0062.html

peschitta_enthusiast said:

For those who do not know what I speak, I refer to the organelles - general science holds that they were at first individual organisms. Let's take an elephant, a human, a dog, a cat and make the first super-cell

Click to expand...

Talk about ridiculous. All those listed are multicellular animals. So you can't fit an animal made of billions of cells into a single cell!

However, having one bacteria come to live in another bacteria, or a cell coming to live in another cell, is not a stretch. Think of tuberculosis. The tuberculosis bacterium must live inside another cell. So it is not so far-fetched.

As to endosymbiosis and evidence, it took me all of 3 minutes to find these articles on PubMed of observational evidence for the theory. You just aren't trying to find evidence.

1: Horiike T, Hamada K, Kanaya S, Shinozawa T. Origin of eukaryotic cell nuclei by symbiosis of Archaea in Bacteria isrevealed by homology-hit analysis.Nat Cell Biol. 2001 Feb;3(2):210-4. PMID: 11175755 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]2: Horiike T, Hamada K, Shinozawa T. Origin of eukaryotic cell nuclei by symbiosis of Archaea in Bacteria supportedby the newly clarified origin of functional genes.Genes Genet Syst. 2002 Oct;77(5):369-76. PMID: 12441648 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]3: Embley TM, van der Giezen M, Horner DS, Dyal PL, Foster P. Mitochondria and hydrogenosomes are two forms of the same fundamentalorganelle.Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Jan 29;358(1429):191-201; discussion201-2. Review. PMID: 12594927 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]4: Corsaro D, Venditti D, Padula M, Valassina M. Intracellular life.Crit Rev Microbiol. 1999;25(1):39-79. Review. PMID: 10342099 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]5: Emelyanov VV. Rickettsiaceae, rickettsia-like endosymbionts, and the origin of mitochondria.Biosci Rep. 2001 Feb;21(1):1-17. Review. PMID: 11508688 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Arikay said:

Ok a challenge for you, visit your site and pick 1 (yes One, at least for now) piece of evidence that you think is true, that you understand and that you think deals a large blow to evolution, and we will discuss it. Is that acceptable?

Click to expand...

How about this one from the 'mutations' section:
"Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes) that was a permanent one, passing on from one generation to another"

heh, most of the experiments carried out an fruit fly are not to test the possibility of mutations in an evolutionary manner, but are intended to help us understand the functions of the various genes, and their inheritance patterns. However even given that, what you say is false. we have observed a number of beneficial mutations, such as the nylon eating bacteria, fruit flies that eat meat and bread and so on. even sickle cell anaemia is beneficial if you live in an area infested with malaryia.