Proof???!!!!!

[TheOutsider]

There is no "Reason" to the Universe, but there is a Rhythm and Rhyme to it.

I'm sorry to be the one to brake it to ya but there is no such thing as "True Chaos."

Rhythm and Rhyme are merely human constructs to attempt to understand the universe. They only exist inside the human mind.

 

[Carey]

Judging from later posts I think many here just skipped reading post # 156

 

[Chalnoth]

One of the interesting things about chaos is that a completely chaotic system is indistinguishable from a completely ordered system.

For example, consider white noise on a TV screen. When you look up close, you find that the pixels are flashing a myriad of colors in no recognizable pattern. Step back a bit, and the colors disappear: it merely looks like black and white and shades of grey in between. Step back further, and it all blends into a uniform shade of grey.

This is, in fact, an important aspect of fundamental physics. All of thermodynamics, a system of laws which is highly predictable and concrete, can be built up based upon the assumption that at the level of the very small, everything is disordered. The apparent order simply comes from the fact that you have large numbers of particles. As such we find that even though the universe appears to be chaotic at its core, this does not mean that we can't understand it, or that we can't provide concrete, testable predictions as to what will happen in the future.

 

[Chalnoth]

Judging from later posts I think many here just skipped reading post # 156

Well, yes. It was so unbelievably wrong that we didn't want to bother with it. The strongest evidence for evolution is in our DNA. See, for example, ERV's.

And if you doubt that the sheer amount of information makes sense, it might help to read my post on information theory as applied to DNA: http://foru.ms/t3850496-information...-mutations-add-information-to-the-genome.html
I show that average information, over time, increases, and since it's had somewhere around 3.8 billion years to increase, we should expect to see monstrous amounts of information in our genome. And we do. No surprise there.

 

[Carey]

Well, yes. It was so unbelievably wrong that we didn't want to bother with it. The strongest evidence for evolution is in our DNA. See, for example, ERV's.

And if you doubt that the sheer amount of information makes sense, it might help to read my post on information theory as applied to DNA: http://foru.ms/t3850496-information...-mutations-add-information-to-the-genome.html
I show that average information, over time, increases, and since it's had somewhere around 3.8 billion years to increase, we should expect to see monstrous amounts of information in our genome. And we do. No surprise there.

Hmmm but there are so many scientists who would disagree with you.

<LI style="WIDTH: 545px" about="r7">YouDebate.com Forum > Math Proof of Creation Math Proof of Creation Evolution or Creation: The FINAL Argument ... of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, ...
www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?fo... - 145k - Similar pages
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=14863
<LI style="WIDTH: 545px" about="r8">DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess? Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from Answers in Genesis ..... Similarly, while many use ‘junk’ DNA as ‘proof’ of evolution, ...
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp - 55k - Similar pages
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp
<LI style="WIDTH: 545px" about="r9">DNA Evolution...DNA Creation what is the real story DNA evolution, or does Dna support creation, Where did we come from where are we ... error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, ...
www.evolution-vs-creation.net/dna-evolution.html - 28k - Similar pages
http://www.evolution-vs-creation.net/dna-evolution.html
<LI style="WIDTH: 545px" about="r10">DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution > The Good News... Creation and Evolution: An Interview With Philip Johnson .... error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes ...
www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm - 36k - Similar pages
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm
<LI style="WIDTH: 545px" about="r11">DNA We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is ... Therefore, a single base strand of DNA for all organisms proves creation by ...
hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html - 11k - Similar pages

 

[Chalnoth]

Hmmm but there are so many scientists who would disagree with you.

Argument from popularity is completely and utterly useless. And, it turns out, in this case it's also wrong (Only a tiny percentage of life scientists thing evolution is wrong).

Explain why the things I posted are wrong, or don't bother (the links I posted, by the way, explain quite well why your links are wrong). The things I posted, after all, are actual arguments, backed by real evidence, instead of made-up fluff and personal opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is the 20 % of an article I am allowed to post. and its site.

--- good post, Carey!

 

[DrkSdBls]

Rhythm and Rhyme are merely human constructs to attempt to understand the universe. They only exist inside the human mind.

The same can be equally said of Chaos. Chaos is only a Human concept as well. Only those who sees Chaos as the only shape the universe can take will only ever see Chaos.

That's why I said that there is no such thing as "True Chaos." At least Rhythm and Rhyme are more acturate terms by which we can understand the universe in our infinitely limited understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

yes that's what we can do, I feel much better now knowing we have a God we can point to when we don't understand something.

Like this doosey?

 

[The Bellman]

Judging from later posts I think many here just skipped reading post # 156

No, we all read it, we just recognised it was complete rubbish and PRATTs that wasn't worth refuting again.

 

[TheBear]

I had started a thread on this very topic a while ago. The best they could do was refer me to a complex and convoluted chart.

 

[AV1611VET]

I had started a thread on this very topic a while ago. The best they could do was refer me to a complex and convoluted chart.

Ya --- here's your complex and convoluted chart:

POST 59
​

 

[TheBear]

Ya --- here's your complex and convoluted chart:

POST 59
​

Why are you so damned aggressive and confrontational with me? My post wasn't even directed your way.

Grow up, drop the anger and the rage, and we'll get along just fine. In the mean time, direct your hostility elsewhere. Thank you.

 

[Tenka]

For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

You see carey this 'one mistake in 10 billion letters' occurs each time DNA copies itself but the DNA from which they come from are far from error free. Lets put this "precision" into perspective.

From the book I'm reading now 'Shadows of forgotten ancestors' by Sagan/Druyan: In the Kangaroo rat of southwest America the sequence AAG is repeated 2.4 billion times, one after the other (AAGAAGAAGAAG....), TTAGGG is repeated 2.2 billion times and ACACAGCGGG 1.2 billion times.
No intelligent typist will ever make a copying mistake of that magnitude and no intelligent linguist would ever devise such a massively redundant language.

 

[Patashu]

You see carey this 'one mistake in 10 billion letters' occurs each time DNA copies itself but the DNA from which they come from are far from error free. Lets put this "precision" into perspective.

From the book I'm reading now 'Shadows of forgotten ancestors' by Sagan/Druyan: In the Kangaroo rat of southwest America the sequence AAG is repeated 2.4 billion times, one after the other (AAGAAGAAGAAG....), TTAGGG is repeated 2.2 billion times and ACACAGCGGG 1.2 billion times.
No intelligent typist will ever make a copying mistake of that magnitude and no intelligent linguist would ever devise such a massively redundant language.

Perhaps those long AAGAAGAAGAAG etc sequences are just proof that God's cat got onto the genetic keyboard while he was busy with other divine projects? I know my cat could produce typing like that.

 

[Carey]

Argument from popularity is completely and utterly useless. And, it turns out, in this case it's also wrong (Only a tiny percentage of life scientists thing evolution is wrong).

Explain why the things I posted are wrong, or don't bother (the links I posted, by the way, explain quite well why your links are wrong). The things I posted, after all, are actual arguments, backed by real evidence, instead of made-up fluff and personal opinion.

You obviously did not read the real evidence in the many links that have disproved cross species evolution.

If you think about it there are many other ways to disprove evolution.

To add to the uniqueness of the platypus, studies of its mtDNA forced evolutionists to give upon mtDNA to 'prove' evolution. The studies showed that it was closer to eutherian mammals (cows, men, etc.) than the marsupials (kangaroos, koalas).


While bats are unique in more than one way (they are the only mammal capable of powered flight) what makes them quite unique, (and unexplainable to evolutionists) is their echolocation.


Euglena is a single celled eukaryotic protist which is both a plant (has chlorophyll and makes its own food) and an animal (is capable of self motion by means of a flagellar 'tail'). Oh yes, it also has an eye spot which allows it to use light for directional purposes. Quite a problem for evolution for several reasons. While bacteria are known to be able to 'borrow' DNA from other bacteria, eukaryotes, because of their nucleus and stronger cell walls cannot. As we know, one cannot descend from totally disparate species.

Butterflies, as we learned in school have a two stage process of being born. First when they come out of the egg, they become caterpillars. They then shed their outer skin and start transforming themselves into a pupa (cocoon) after some two weeks, the butterfly is born in all its glory. This well known fact is a serious problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution has long claimed (in spite of this well known fact) that the process of gestation and birth recapitulates evolution. However, other insects which arose much earlier do not reproduce this way and just a few species reproduce this way (frogs also reproduce after a transformation from egg to tadpole to frog, but interestingly, almost identical looking frogs of the same genus are born as tadpoles and by skipping the tadpole stage).
The Monarch is special and a problem to evolution in another way, it is the only insect that migrates. This is not surprising since insects are fairly small and short lived. The Monarch though migrates over several generations to its Mexican breeding grounds from all over the US and finds its way back, generations later to where it came from. Scientists are saying that it has a more accurate GPS system than the US. They cannot reproduce in the winter, so they would become extinct it they did not migrate. What no one can understand is how the knowledge of the migration site and the original summer homes is passed on through multiple generations

The fugu (also known as the pufferfish) was selected as one of the first species to have their entire genome sequenced due to the smallness of it. Like humans, it has some 30,000+ genes, however, its genome is only some 400 million DNA bases as opposed to the human's 3 billion DNA bases. Scientists thought that this would make it easier to learn from the puffer fish how our genome works. Surprisingly, the fugu genes are so much like ours - even after some 400 million years of evolution since the fugu fish came about, that scientists were able to discover some 1,000 new genes in humans from their research on the fugu fish. This disproves the claim by evolutionists that the non-coding DNA is 'junk', clearly our genes could not be so close and our bodies so different if there was not something else in the non-coding regions that effected these changes. The closeness of our genes to the fugu also makes comical the evolutionist's 'tree of life' and many of their supposed genetic 'proofs' of evolution.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm

 

[Loudmouth]

You obviously did not read the real evidence in the many links that have disproved cross species evolution.

What the heck is "cross species evolution"? If you mean "the evolution of a new species" then you need to deal with the fact that scientists have observed new species being produced in the wild and in the lab.

If you think about it there are many other ways to disprove evolution.

To add to the uniqueness of the platypus, studies of its mtDNA forced evolutionists to give upon mtDNA to 'prove' evolution. The studies showed that it was closer to eutherian mammals (cows, men, etc.) than the marsupials (kangaroos, koalas).

Source?

While bats are unique in more than one way (they are the only mammal capable of powered flight) what makes them quite unique, (and unexplainable to evolutionists) is their echolocation.

Echolocation is not unique. Dolphins also use it, and humans can also echolocate.

How does echolocation falsify evolution?

Euglena is a single celled eukaryotic protist which is both a plant (has chlorophyll and makes its own food) and an animal (is capable of self motion by means of a flagellar 'tail'). Oh yes, it also has an eye spot which allows it to use light for directional purposes. Quite a problem for evolution for several reasons. While bacteria are known to be able to 'borrow' DNA from other bacteria, eukaryotes, because of their nucleus and stronger cell walls cannot. As we know, one cannot descend from totally disparate species.

Plants and animals share a common ancestor, so it is not surprising that basal eukaryotes have characteristics of both. In fact, this is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true. Also, the chloroplasts in Euglenia are endosymbionts just like our mitochondria.

So how does this falsify evolution?

Butterflies, as we learned in school have a two stage process of being born. First when they come out of the egg, they become caterpillars. They then shed their outer skin and start transforming themselves into a pupa (cocoon) after some two weeks, the butterfly is born in all its glory. This well known fact is a serious problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution has long claimed (in spite of this well known fact) that the process of gestation and birth recapitulates evolution. However, other insects which arose much earlier do not reproduce this way and just a few species reproduce this way (frogs also reproduce after a transformation from egg to tadpole to frog, but interestingly, almost identical looking frogs of the same genus are born as tadpoles and by skipping the tadpole stage).

Insects diverged from the other metazoan lineages before they developed metamorphosis. Besides, basal chordates such as the tunicates also go through metamorphic stages.

How does this falsify evolution?

The Monarch is special and a problem to evolution in another way, it is the only insect that migrates. This is not surprising since insects are fairly small and short lived. The Monarch though migrates over several generations to its Mexican breeding grounds from all over the US and finds its way back, generations later to where it came from. Scientists are saying that it has a more accurate GPS system than the US. They cannot reproduce in the winter, so they would become extinct it they did not migrate. What no one can understand is how the knowledge of the migration site and the original summer homes is passed on through multiple generations

How is this a problem for evolution?

The fugu (also known as the pufferfish) was selected as one of the first species to have their entire genome sequenced due to the smallness of it. Like humans, it has some 30,000+ genes, however, its genome is only some 400 million DNA bases as opposed to the human's 3 billion DNA bases. Scientists thought that this would make it easier to learn from the puffer fish how our genome works. Surprisingly, the fugu genes are so much like ours - even after some 400 million years of evolution since the fugu fish came about, that scientists were able to discover some 1,000 new genes in humans from their research on the fugu fish. This disproves the claim by evolutionists that the non-coding DNA is 'junk', clearly our genes could not be so close and our bodies so different if there was not something else in the non-coding regions that effected these changes. The closeness of our genes to the fugu also makes comical the evolutionist's 'tree of life' and many of their supposed genetic 'proofs' of evolution.

If fugu and humans share a common ancestor shouldn't we share genes with them? Instead of disproving evolution you have actually supported it. Besides, fugu and humans are both vertebrates with jaws so we should share characteristics, and we do.

So how does this disprove evolution?

 

[Carey]

What the heck is "cross species evolution"? If you mean "the evolution of a new species" then you need to deal with the fact that scientists have observed new species being produced in the wild and in the lab.

If you think about it there are many other ways to disprove evolution.



Source?



Echolocation is not unique. Dolphins also use it, and humans can also echolocate.

How does echolocation falsify evolution?




Plants and animals share a common ancestor, so it is not surprising that basal eukaryotes have characteristics of both. In fact, this is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true. Also, the chloroplasts in Euglenia are endosymbionts just like our mitochondria.

So how does this falsify evolution?



Insects diverged from the other metazoan lineages before they developed metamorphosis. Besides, basal chordates such as the tunicates also go through metamorphic stages.

How does this falsify evolution?




How is this a problem for evolution?



If fugu and humans share a common ancestor shouldn't we share genes with them? Instead of disproving evolution you have actually supported it. Besides, fugu and humans are both vertebrates with jaws so we should share characteristics, and we do.

So how does this disprove evolution?

Reptiles do not cross species and become foul.

Monkeys dont cross species and become Human.

Here are some links for you.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm





http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/evolution.htm

At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: that changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome, and that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive. With nature doing the selection, evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. We are told that the selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness, however, remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied mutations from among which the selection by survival takes place.
The question is: Can random mutations produce the evolution of life?
Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life, statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of mutations, the contents of the "original DNA," and environmental conditions -- all these affect the rate and direction of the changes in morphology. And these are all unknowns.
From a secular view, one must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This would imply a direction to evolution, and basic to all Darwinian theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction. The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random. The challenges presented by the environment determine which will survive to produce the new generations and which will perish.
PROTEIN COMBINATIONS
With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At an event recorded in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life. Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished. Since then the fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have evolved. At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event (possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor) eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear. The implication is that only a limited number of life forms (phyla) are viable.
It is no wonder that the most widely read science journal, Scientific American, asked "has the mechanism of evolution altered in ways that prevent fundamental changes in body plans of animals" (November 1992). It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed; it is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change to fit the data presented by the fossil record and by the discoveries of molecular biology.
It is difficult and painful to discard entrenched notions of what is actually true, even when scientific data demand such an abandonment. Pure randomness as the source of the mutations that neo-Darwinian concepts demand to drive the evolution of life no longer stands against the mounting evidence of scientific data. Unfortunately, the emotional commitment to a totally materialist view of life makes discarding this notion problematic.
Let's look at the likelihood that random mutations could have produced viable forms of life. Life as we know it is built largely of combinations of proteins working in symbiotic harmony. But as we've seen, only certain combinations produce viable life. Other combinations fail.
Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 to 100,000 proteins active in mammalian bodies. It is estimated that there are some 30 animal phyla on Earth. If the genomes of each animal phylum produced 100,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the phyla (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 x 100,000) 3 million proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower.)
Now let's consider the likelihood of these 3 million viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that the events following the Cambrian explosion of animal life and the later decimation of 90% of life taught us that only certain combinations of proteins are viable.
Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids that join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices!
Simon Conway Morris, professor of evolutionary paleontology at the University of Cambridge and fellow of the Royal Society of England, is the scientist who revealed the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life. He refers to this vast biological waste land of failed life forms as the "multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality."
Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion non-viable proteins -- and pulled out the one that worked.
And then repeated this trick a million times.
With odds like that, it is amazing that nature and our bodies ever got it or get it right.
But perhaps not every amino acid can join with every other amino acid. If this is the case, then the number of possible combinations will be reduced. To get even hint for what this would do to the hyperspace of failed choices, I looked at combinations of amino acids that actually exist in just six proteins. Among the proteins I used were bovine insulin and bovine ribonuclease. The number of potential amino acid combinations just from this modest sampling of proteins was 10 to the power of 20. Again, nature would have had to select the one viable combination from among 100 billion billion wrong choices. Either our knowledge of statistical probability is skewed or something other than randomness is operating.
The late Harvard professor
​

 

[Chalnoth]

Reptiles do not cross species and become foul.

Monkeys dont cross species and become Human.

If either of these happened, it would disprove evolution. A member of one species cannot have offspring that is a member of another, existing species. That does not happen.

What happens, instead, is that you have two populations of the same species that become separated, so that they no longer interbreed. After being separated for long enough, each taking its own, separate path of evolution, eventually they can no longer breed even if they come together again. This is how new species develop. And after one species becomes two, the two populations just become more and more different from one another, explaining the wonderful diversity of life.

Our ancestors speciated from our common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago. In the half million to a million generations since, both of our species have changed quite a bit. Ours a bit more, simply due to the different environment they lived in.

Edit:
Oh, and your abiogenesis stuff is just plain wrong. Be educated:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Abiogenesis (the formation of life from unliving substances) appears to be absolutely inevitable, given the right conditions, conditions which the early Earth had.

 

[ReverendDG]

What the heck is "cross species evolution"? If you mean "the evolution of a new species" then you need to deal with the fact that scientists have observed new species being produced in the wild and in the lab.



Reptiles do not cross species and become foul.

Monkeys dont cross species and become Human.

Here are some links for you.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm





http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/evolution.htm

--snip---
​

ok there is no such thing as "cross species evolution, go read a book about evolution that isn't creationist garbage
i love the last link.. so full of straw-men and creationist PRATTS.
i always love how people think the "cambrian explosion really was an explosion, and use terms like suddenly. suddenly? like poof theres a bunch of new stuff? straw-man. science doesn't mean suddenly as in an instance, it means suddenly in comparison to everything that happened in the last ~1 billion years!

i love how websites like this think that, because its a large number that somehow its impossible. when they haven't shown it is. just a really high number