"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[bhsmte]

It means he was right.

Why? Because you say so?

 

[-57]

Why? Because you say so?

Are you saying post 173 isn't accurate?

 

[-57]

How radiometric dating works in general
Why methods in general are inaccurate
Why K-Ar dating is inaccurate
The branching ratio problem
How Errors Can Account for the Observed Dates
Why older dates would be found lower in the geologic column especially for K-Ar dating
Do different methods agree with each other on the geologic column?
Possible other sources of correlation
Anomalies of radiometric dating
Why a low anomaly percentage is meaningless
The biostrategraphic limits issue
Preponderance of K-Ar dating
Excuses for anomalies
Need for a double-blind test
Possible changes in the decay rate
Isochrons
Atlantic sea floor dating
Dating Meteorites
Conclusion
Gentry's radiohaloes in coalified wood
Carbon 14 dating
Tree ring chronologies
Coral dating
Varves
Growth of coral reefs
Evidence for catastrophe in the geologic column
Rates of erosion
Reliability of creationist sources

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

<snip>

And every single source is from a unverified, pro-creationist website. In fact, the fact the last one "Reliability of creationist sources" is a huge tip off that the list is complete bull.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

<DELETE>

Darn laptop.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps you would like to get back to post 3?

A post where you did nothing but simply restate what science says and apply your own personal incredulity to the information.
To claim that the building blocks of life are too complicated to have evolved, you actually have to show they were created. And simply saying that because they exist shows that they were created is just childish.

 

[USincognito]

Hello doubtingmerle and the rest of you guys,
I hesitate to jump in here, you all seem to be having such a good time and I don't want to get in the way. But I'm really interested to know what, if any, detailed mathematical modeling has been done on any part of a hypothesised evolutionary sequence?
For example, setting aside, how did chemicals become life, if we start with a single cell 'creature'. Then the experts work out in sequential detail what and how many changes there has to be to for this single cell to become say a fish. Nothing fancy just a sort of ordinary fish creature. As well as mapping out the sequential changes they (I'm expecting) could tell us what changes in the initial DNA and onward caused each of the evolutionary steps. Now as as best as I understand it the changes to DNA are sort of random so a most important part of this modeling is trying to estimate (I don't know if statistical probabilities are considered science around here?) the time needed for all the necessary randomly occurring mutations to occur.
In theory, with super computers and a few thousand evolutionary biologists on the job we should even be able to end up modeling all the way through to this fish.
Seriously, I know all about there having been billions and zillions of years but what detailed modeling has been done giving a detailed estimated time line for a specific evolutionary sequence?
Thanking you for any information you may have on this matter.
><>

To be honest, modeling and statistics and calculations, etc. are the wrong way to approach this particular subject. That said:

For the purpose of your cell, the current theory for going from prokaryote (no organelles) to eukaryote (organelles) is endosymbiosis. You can read up on it here:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/organelles/

Since you're asking about fish, we then need to look to the Eukaryotic line leading to animals. There is genetic evidence that fungi and animals belong to a group called Opisthokonta.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/93.full

You can see Opisthokonts in this tree of Eukaryotes.
http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3
You can also take the links from basal animals to fish.

This animation from Carl Sagan's Cosmos succinctly explains the evolution the earliest cells to fish (the first 3 minutes).

 

[USincognito]

Hmmmm, sounds like you are offended because of your ape like ancestors.

You might want to review the forum rules.

Trolling

Trolling is intentionally disrupting a thread by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the clear intention of provoking other members into an emotional response. Please do not troll. Calling another member a "troll" would be a violation of the flaming rule (calling them a derogatory name).

 

[doubtingmerle]

The first motor protein was designed by God.

I didn't ask you who designed the first motor protein. I asked you how it came into existence. Care to actually address the question?

I told you how I think it came into existence using known processes. I notice that my view is the only view on the table right now, so I guess I win by default. Care to put an alternate view on the table? How do you think the first motor protein came into existence?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hello doubtingmerle and the rest of you guys,
I hesitate to jump in here, you all seem to be having such a good time and I don't want to get in the way. But I'm really interested to know what, if any, detailed mathematical modeling has been done on any part of a hypothesised evolutionary sequence?
For example, setting aside, how did chemicals become life, if we start with a single cell 'creature'. Then the experts work out in sequential detail what and how many changes there has to be to for this single cell to become say a fish. Nothing fancy just a sort of ordinary fish creature. As well as mapping out the sequential changes they (I'm expecting) could tell us what changes in the initial DNA and onward caused each of the evolutionary steps. Now as as best as I understand it the changes to DNA are sort of random so a most important part of this modeling is trying to estimate (I don't know if statistical probabilities are considered science around here?) the time needed for all the necessary randomly occurring mutations to occur.
In theory, with super computers and a few thousand evolutionary biologists on the job we should even be able to end up modeling all the way through to this fish.
Seriously, I know all about there having been billions and zillions of years but what detailed modeling has been done giving a detailed estimated time line for a specific evolutionary sequence?
Thanking you for any information you may have on this matter.
><>

Its rather difficult to simulate an entire organism's DNA and the creature it produces with a computer, so we are a long way from letting simulated creatures with simulated DNA evolve in a computer. However special computer code has been shown to evolve when exposed to mutation and selection. See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives...ian_evolution_and_irreducible_complexity.html .

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ya ... I don't believe it.

Probably when a rock is sent for analysis, they want to know where it was found, what layer it was found in, when it was found, who found it, what date(s) are they looking for, and a host of other questions.

Then they set to work to get them the information they are paying to find.

Just my theory.

Uh, no who would send a rock to a lab saying he wants it to date to a certain age, and then pay the lab money to give him the answer he wants?

That would be like the nurse sending a blood test to the lab with the note, "This guy looks fat, give him a high cholesterol reading." That would be a waste. Such tests mean nothing.

You could be cured of your theory in an hour in a library with scientific journals discussing the fossil record. There you will find thousands of articles with many dates, all written as though they are legitimate. Then try walking from that library believing all those dates were pulled out of a hat. I can tell you from experience, it will change you. Years ago, I walked into the library as a young earth creationist, but walked out knowing that something was very wrong with what young earth creationists were telling me.

 

[-57]

To be honest, modeling and statistics and calculations, etc. are the wrong way to approach this particular subject. That said:

For the purpose of your cell, the current theory for going from prokaryote (no organelles) to eukaryote (organelles) is endosymbiosis. You can read up on it here:
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/organelles/

Since you're asking about fish, we then need to look to the Eukaryotic line leading to animals. There is genetic evidence that fungi and animals belong to a group called Opisthokonta.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/93.full

You can see Opisthokonts in this tree of Eukaryotes.
http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3
You can also take the links from basal animals to fish.

This animation from Carl Sagan's Cosmos succinctly explains the evolution the earliest cells to fish (the first 3 minutes).

It took hundreds of millions of years for plants to evolve but that branch didn't lead to us...How does Sagan know that?

 

[-57]

I didn't ask you who designed the first motor protein. I asked you how it came into existence. Care to actually address the question?

I thought I was pretty clear when I established the fact...it was created. By God.

 

[-57]

I told you how I think it came into existence using known processes. I notice that my view is the only view on the table right now, so I guess I win by default. Care to put an alternate view on the table? How do you think the first motor protein came into existence?

Known processes? So, you are claiming scientist know how the motor protein came into existence?

I'm calling you out for proof.....or retract that statement.

 

[-57]

Its rather difficult to simulate an entire organism's DNA and the creature it produces with a computer, so we are a long way from letting simulated creatures with simulated DNA evolve in a computer. However special computer code has been shown to evolve when exposed to mutation and selection. See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives...ian_evolution_and_irreducible_complexity.html .

Can you copy and paste the relevant parts?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I thought I was pretty clear when I established the fact...it was created. By God.

The question was how God created it.

Some people think God created animals by using a process of evolution. Is that the process you think he used?

Some people think God created animals out of nothing, they just suddenly appeared fully formed by miracle. Is that the process you think he used?

Or was it some other process?

 

[-57]

Uh, no who would send a rock to a lab saying he wants it to date to a certain age, and then pay the lab money to give him the answer he wants?

That would be like the nurse sending a blood test to the lab with the note, "This guy looks fat, give him a high cholesterol reading." That would be a waste. Such tests mean nothing.

You could be cured of your theory in an hour in a library with scientific journals discussing the fossil record. There you will find thousands of articles with many dates, all written as though they are legitimate. Then try walking from that library believing all those dates were pulled out of a hat. I can tell you from experience, it will change you. Years ago, I walked into the library as a young earth creationist, but walked out knowing that something was very wrong with what young earth creationists were telling me.

Now, I've personally never had a rock dated...but from corresponding to people who have....they kinda want to know a little bit about the rock. If the date is off....well, we all know there was some sort of error. Perhaps contamination. Yes?

 

[-57]

The question was how God created it.

Some people think God created animals by using a process of evolution. Is that the process you think he used?

Some people think God created animals out of nothing, they just suddenly appeared fully formed by miracle. Is that the process you think he used?

Or was it some other process?

It's quite clear according to the account presented in Genesis God didn't use evolutionism. After all, creating woman from mans rib isn't evolutionism...or would you like to argue that it was????

As far as creating animals out of nothing...is that really what the bible teaches? Perhaps you should read Genesis.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Known processes? So, you are claiming scientist know how the motor protein came into existence?

I'm calling you out for proof.....or retract that statement.

You want proof ,you say. Oh dear. This isn't mathematics. Biologists deal with evidence, not formal proofs.

We are quite certain it came about through the process I had described, where there were mutations, natural selection, and new combinations that led to this new feature.

 

[-57]

The question was how God created it.

Just for the record....I'm still waiting for a proper response to post 3.
You called me out...you started the thread...I RESPONDED.... and you still have failed to show how the motor protein evolved through the process of evolutionism.

Then again I do admire your great faith in assuming it did....Considering assumption is all you have.