• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

so called evo evidence

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by RTooty, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. Ectezus

    Ectezus Beholder

    In Relationship
    I agree, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. This goes both ways of course and creationists have never provided any scientific evidence to support their claims.
    Evolution has 150 years of research so when you ask 'show me' it comes off as a bit weird.
    There is no single piece of evidence because it's a combination of all different sciences that comes together and proof evolution by common decent.

    Here's one as well about ERV's.

    YouTube - Evolution is REAL Science #3

    I expect you to watch the whole 10 minutes and give your detailed feedback on it and why it doesn't proof evolution.

    Finding just a single out of place ERV would be a blow to evolution. The amount of existing ERV's is staggering and so far NONE is out of place. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

    - Ectezus
  2. ranmaonehalf

    ranmaonehalf Senior Member

    Me too, now if it was a long time poster then id be wary. But yep mu first thought was Poe too.
  3. ragarth

    ragarth Well-Known Member

    Tell me how you can support evolution based upon present knowledge of DNA and genes.

    [post=51367267]By ragarth[/post]
    adenine C5H5N5
    uracil C4H4N2O2
    cytosine C4H5N3O
    guanine C5H5N5O

    Ribose C5H10O5
    Phosphate: PO4

    thermodynamic favoratism of nitrogenous bases and ribomes
    SpringerLink - Journal Article

    self replicating RNA with provolution
    Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme -- Lincoln and Joyce 323 (5918): 1229 -- Science

    synthesis of full nucleotides via natural abiogenic methods:
    ScienceDirect - Advances in Space Research : Abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides in conditions of space flight of the biosputnik “BION-11”

    So here we have all the building blocks of life forming via abiogenic means all the way up to basic nucleotides (a nucleotide consists of a nitrogenous base, a ribome, and a phosphate), and a research paper I can't read fully that describes a sequence of events that would create long polymerase chains. The only thing we're missing is a minimum length and number of self-replicating chains within that length.

    A length I arbitrarily found was 114:
    Nucleotide sequence of microvariant RNA: another small replicating molecule.

    Only problem is I can find nothing saying how many combinations within that are self-replicating, it could be anywhere from 'all of them' to 'none' but more than likely in between. If we start plugging in random value we get some figures:

    4^114 = 1 in 4*10^68 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand
    2^114 = 1 in 2*10^34 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand
    1^114 = 1 in 1 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand

    Now let's have some math fun, let's arbitrarily assume that the number of reactions taking place at any moment on a prebiotic earth is equal to the number of grains of sand upon the earth (10^24) and lets assume that a reaction takes place every minute, we get:

    (10^68 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 7.6*10^38 years
    (2*10^34 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 38156 years
    (1 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 10^-30 years (let's just assume 1 second, shall we?)

    So the top and bottom ones seem very unlikely, and the middle one seems really low. We can't put a date on the start of the RNA World Hypothesis if it's correct because our only figures (4 billion years ago for life) go back to when early cells existed and RNA World does not rely strictly upon cells- at best ligand globs as stated by an earlier poster or simply free floating. Let's not let reality stop us though! Now we get into pointless speculation. :D (moreso than this post already is. :p Seriously, I'm all but pulling figures out of my butt here.) Let's assume 4 billion years ago RNA World began, that gives us 400 million years of chemical processes to produce it. Reversing the equation:

    Chance = Time(total) * Time(reaction) * Number(reactions per unit time)

    So plug it in for 400 million (age of earth - 4 billion give or take a bit)

    Chance = Time(total) * Time(reaction) * Number(reactions per unit time)

    400000000 * (364 * 24 * 60) * 10^24 = a 1 in 2*10^38 chance per reaction

    So there you go, the chances for life to arise on a given planetary body fitting the requisites for life are very, very good even if the per-reaction chance is crazy mofo with a nuke low.

    N.B. Most of this is whipped out of the aether of my swiss cheese, take it worth the value of a fart, or the value of my dog's fart.
    Not directly related, it deals with statistically proofing abiogenesis, but most creationists seem to conflate abiogenesis and evolution so I figured why not.

    [post=51370038]By ragarth[/post]
    Okay, I slept, so now I feel a bit more like explaining some of my assumptions in my previous post. The first biggie is my choice of base pairs: 4, 2, and 1. 4 is obvious, a given position within a length of RNA can have 4 different molecules in it, giving us 4 different possible solutions. The 2 is there because we can divide these four nucleotides into 2 groups: Adenine always binds with Guanine and Thymine always bonds with Uracil, therefore since there's no other value than self replication it's feasible that it doesn't matter which in a given group binds because it will always produce it's compliment, ergo 2 possible solutions. The 1 is arbitrary and used as a representative of every possible combination of 114 base pairs being a solution, so the chances are 1:1.

    My choice of the grains of sand in the world is arbitrary because there is nothing that tells us how many chemical reactions might have taken effect in prebiotic earth. Seawater and hydrothermal vents are likely with seawater having a more diffuse density than the vents. Since the area needed for a chemical reaction is smaller than that for a grain of sand then in a chemical and energy rich environment you can have several reactions in the same space as a single grain of sand. I didn't provide a range for this as I did for the base pairs because the factors that go into this are majorly game changing, if we take into account only long polymerase production here on earth, it's probably high, if we take into account long polymerase production in asteroids and comets in our solar system then it's probably low, if we take into account polymerase production in the accretion disk of the sun during planet formation then the figure is stupidly low, ergo the range is so massive I used the first thing that popped into my mind and since the common refrain is 'the chances are larger than the number of grains of sand on the planet' and 'the chances are greater than the number of stars in the universe' I decided to go with sand.

    Also, a correction! I put 4 million years, it's supposed to be 400 million years!

    400000000 * (364 * 24 * 60) * 10^24 = a 1 in 2*10^38 chance per reaction

    [post=50934358]By ragarth[/post]
    How about a little light reading?

    Retrovirology | Full text | The discovery of endogenous retroviruses
    Journal of Human Genetics - Abstract of article: Ancient retroviral insertions among human populations
    Characterization of the Intragenomic Spread of the Human Endogenous Retrovirus Family HERV-W -- Costas 19 (4): 526 -- Molecular Biology and Evolution

    Viruses and the Evolution of Life

    Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of the Human Endogenous Retrovirus HERV-W LTR Family in Hominoid Primates

    Basically, HERV-W was endogenized around 5 million years ago into the germline cells of ancestral apes. The duplication of this ERV's sequences gives a timeframe that allows us to plot points of divergence between species. This matches the phylogenetic tree constructed for the Hominoid taxonomy, and so is proof of evolution.

    As a side note, these ERV's were once thought to be neutral in the genome, recent studies have shown that they are linked to certain functions such as trophoblast cell fusion in human development, and also their latent activation can be linked to certain diseases such as schizophrenia. This makes the study of ERV's role in HGT pretty hot right now. It's important to note, however, that only sections of the ERV's code does this, the majority of the ERV's code is neutral within the genome.

    [post=50935733]By ragarth[/post]
    It's quite relevent, Diamonds have carbon, bacteria have carbon, trees have carbon. We can ascertain a relationship based on this fact. We can also ascertain a closer relationship to things with DNA, because diamonds to not contain DNA. We can ascertain an even closer relationship between things that share the same ERV, because other things do not share the same ERV.

    We can then look at the pattern of shared ERV's to ascertain common descent. So yes, if you're going to say that diamonds are not relevent to the discussion, then carbon is not relevent to the discussion. You're attempt to handwave away my point is you applying a double standard.

    [post=50936323]By ragarth[/post]
    ERV stands for Endogenous RetroVirus. Basically, it's a virus that manages to insert itself into a hosts germline cell (the cells that produce sperm or eggs for reproduction) but the inserted DNA/RNA fails to replicate itself and instead remains within the germline deactivated. an Endogenous Retovirus Insertion is what happens when the ERV becomes a part of the host's DNA itself. Once insertion takes place, the position of the ERV within the host's DNA is set and will remain in the same position over recursive generations.

    Transcription errors on the ERV insertion happen over time, duplicating or modifying it over the period of thousands or millions of years. By looking at the HERV-w insertion in Hominid DNA, we can see that almost all Hominids share this insertion. This tells us that some hominids are more closely related (The duplications and mutations of their HERV-w are more similar) and others are less related (The duplications and mutations in their HERV-w are less similar) and we can map these duplications and insertions to create an evolutionary tree. Because this is all based upon the insertion of viral dna, this is conclusive proof of common decent from the moment of insertion to now.

    Since HERV-w was inserted around 5 million years ago, we have conclusive proof of common decent of hominids going back 5 million years based upon this evidence.

    NeuroLogica Blog The Judgement of Tiktaalik
    What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
    So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
  4. Jester4kicks

    Jester4kicks Warning - The following may cause you to think


    You're the one who started a thread to criticize what you referred to as the "so called evo evidence"... ergo, YOU are the proponent of your own position, and yet you haven't offered and direct criticism of any part of the Theory of Evolution. You just keep running your mouth, sticking to generalizations and ad-hom attacks.

    Present something specific that you have a problem with, and we'll be happy to discuss it.

    How wonderfully revealing. :doh:

    So... you would risk paralysis and death just to prove a point about vestigial organs/parts? :doh:

    No... they've yielded some amazing results, including the basic building blocks of life. It's still not a complete theory though, so they're going to continue working on it to see what else they can find out. In case you missed it, there was recently a pretty major study that was just released on this subject as well.


    Regardless, Abiogenesis and Evolution are different fields. Once again, you seem to be having trouble coming up with actually responses to the questions presented to you... so you're just jumping around to anything else and poking your stick at it.

    It's not necessarily impossible... it's just a possibility. Exploring that possibility to determine if it is valid or not is part of science. A good researcher doesn't automatically discount a possibility just because it seems to be unlikely.

    1) You have made broad generalizations and then launched ad-hom attacks to anyone in those general categories.

    2) You have completely ignored requests for specific instances of your accusations.

    3) You have hand-waved away multiple topics, sometimes with single-line-sentences.

    To say that you have been a "contributor", let alone a "polite" one, is an absolute farse.

    (See what I did there, I presented a point AND supported it... try it sometime)

    I'm not here trying to convince you that the evidence is valid... as I have no interest in educating you. YOU raised the point that the evidence is faulty, falsified, or otherwise misinterpretted... I am happy to defend my own position against these attacks, but you have yet to provide a single example of the "faulty evidence" that you are referring to.

    Oh.. and before you get all hung up on my own unwillingness to educate you... there's a simple reason for that. You obviously have a problem with the evidence in support of evolution. Ergo, there's no point in me presenting a well-structured argument, based on available evidence, since you are just as likely to hand-wave it away.

    Until I know what YOU'RE particular problem is with the current evidence for the Theory of Evolution, it is impossible to discuss the matter with you further.
  5. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    How can we address the nature of the "so-called" fradulent evidence, if you refuse to provide evidence that there is any fraud to begin with? You wouldn't be bearing false witness against your neighbors, by any chance... would you?

    Just because you call evidence "fradulent," doesn't mean that it is.

    Give us some specific examples of "fradulent" evidence, or please stop posting here.

    Show us the "fradulent" evidence.

    Look at advances based on genomics. Pete should cover this one.

    Why are you referring to abortion now? Stick with one subject at a time please.

    What does this have to do with "fradulent" evidence for evolution? You are all over the place, like a kid in a candy store.

    Of course, you will eventually claim you have "won." A standard creationist tactic.
  6. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist


    For the lurkers' sake...

    Do I smell an accusation of fraud? Do I smell accusing pretty much every single scientist who ever studied evolution of fraud?

    Evidence please.

    Oh, Ida. A single fossil touted as more than it is does in no way cast doubt on "much" of the evidence for evolution.

    I'd be very surprised if it existed, seeing as there are a zillion different environments on earth at any one time, each with its unique collection of living creatures. There's no way all of the fossilised forms would be represented in a neat chronological column like that unless the entire geological column was preserved over the whole earth. If you have Eocene whale fossils in the column at a certain location, that pretty much excludes having Eocene horse fossils there.

    However, for your education: the geological column apparently does exist.

    Right. Mutations can be reversed. So if A --> T is a loss of information, is T --> A at the same position also a loss of information? Something is fishy about the logic here.

    Is gene duplication a loss of information?

    Define information, please, and demonstrate how this statement is true.


    The fish didn't decide any such thing. The fish just happened to have fins that made it better at moving about in the shallows than other fish. Given an advantage to that ability - say, being better able to avoid the big fish, or having better access to safe breeding grounds, atmospheric oxygen or some food source -, the fish would be a successful one, and the next generation would be full of shallow-adapted little fish. Rinse and repeat...

    How is, let's see... the entire fossil record, hundreds of sequenced genomes and many more sequenced genes, biogeography, observed selection and speciation, novelties arising under scientists' nose and all that "pure speculation and surmise"?

    That's not necessarily positive...

    Believing something based on absolute shiploads of evidence is hardly "faith".

    Since the so-called evidence probably encompasses millions of papers' worth of information, it's kinda hard to address it in general... Any specific areas or pieces of evidence you would like to discuss?

    Evidence, please. Remember, a fraction of a per cent does not a "tendency" make.

    Ask something about DNA, and I might give you that evidence. I'm pretty sure, at least, that I know more about it than you.

    Also, refer back to the mutation/information argument a few paragraphs back.

    Examples, please.

    Evidence for what? Be specific for once, please.

    Seeing as "fundies" make up a very large proportion of those who don't agree with us in this particular matter, that's at least vaguely justified.


    If nothing else, evolution lets us understand why so many things in living organisms are useless or counterproductive :p

    Is "conclusory" even a word?

    For any reason? I think you'd lose the bet.

    Can anyone count all the fallacies in this paragraph?

    There's a slippery slope there: if you don't mind abortion, why wouldn't you mind killing children or cripples? Well, there are differences between clumps of cells, foetuses that have no chance at all of living a happy life, thinking, feeling cripples and, indeed, all kinds of disabilities. It's never a simple issue, no matter how you want to make it simple.

    Then, the whole paragraph is basically a huge irrelevant ad hominem. Look at those baby-eating evilutionists: you sure don't want to believe what they do? Look at the things James Watson said about Africans! Sure DNA can't be a double helix?

    Sorry, man, but the truth of a belief doesn't depend on the moral qualities of the believer.

    What does that have to do with evolution?

    Who are you to say that they are not?

    What does that have to do with evolution?

    Maybe, with your vastly superior moral compass, you could try judging people's morality by their actions, not their religious views. Would you say that a Christian who kills and rapes is moral?

    Indeed your telepathy skills must be very good to read people's mind from the other end of the continent/earth.

    Evidence, please.

    Evidence, please.

    Like I said, be specific, and then maybe we can talk about the evidence. "Evolution" turns up about 2.5 million hits in Google Scholar. Sure you want to be selective when discussing the subject?

    Plus, as has been said already, the burden is on the one making the claim. You claim the evidence is fraudulent, but Ida is the only specific example I've seen you mention, and whether Ida's species is a direct human ancestor or not doesn't really have anything to do with the truth of evolution.

    I will assume that you've never actually studied biological science in any depth.

    MRSA, flu and a whole lot of other things disagree.

    I wonder who would honestly claim that. Of course it's not the reason for all progress. But it is behind a significant proportion of it.

    Tiktaaaaaaaalik!!! :amen:

    You are rambling incoherently. It would help if you occasionally indicated how one sentence connects to the other... Anyway, evolution says that you never step out of your ancestry, so Mendel's peas fit in just fine.

    Please describe in your own words what a non sequitur is.

    I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I certainly haven't.

    I'm sorry? S1 is the first sacral vertebra, right? The one at the top of the pelvis?

    Who the heck said that it was a leftover? It's not even at the end of the vertebral column, or vestigial, or useless, or anything :scratch: And taking it out would kinda... leave a gap in your spine. Of course no one wants it removed.

    What does the origin of life have to do with the theory of evolution?

    (FYI, abiogenesis research has moved well past the primordial soup. We have promising things like growing, dividing protocells now...)

    Talk about irrelevant arguments.

    Perhaps you weren't specific enough with your question?

    You know, it is possible to look at what scientists say and scrutinise it. It tends to be published in papers with detailed methodologies and piles of results. If the evidence is wrong, it's quite possible to find out.
  7. Danyc

    Danyc Senior Member

    Tinfoil hats, get yer tinfoil hats here, only $2 !!
  8. Gracchus

    Gracchus Senior Veteran

    I'll have a quart of Everclear and a carton of marijuana, please.

  9. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    It looks like RTooty is not going to provide evidence for all these frauds he is claiming scientists are perpetuating. Just another lie to demonize his opponents. How unChristian. :( :preach:
  10. ragarth

    ragarth Well-Known Member

    He hasn't been logged in since the day of his last post, so either he hasn't had a chance to check the forums, or he's checking it without logging in. I give people the benefit of the doubt so I say he just hasn't had a chance to answer yet.
  11. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    Didn't he have plenty of opportunity to answer before his last post?
  12. ragarth

    ragarth Well-Known Member

    Your definition of answer is more specific than mine, it seems. You want an answer to *questions* I just want an answer of any form, even if it is a random string of characters.

    The fact is, we can extract information even if he were to post 'reuionakvhjdfioterjklfd' because a non-answer is as good as an answer- it means he is incapable of answering and either doesn't want to say it or doesn't realize it.
  13. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    The scientific community, by and large, says that. Maybe they're all wrong in their formulas and theories. Yeah. That's it. :thumbsup:

    Or, maybe there's a massive and global conspiracy which has been going on for centuries! :eek:

    Well, not quite.

    The basic elements of it all are confirmed observations. That means that there's no "someone". Many scientists from around the world, look at the same data and models. At first, there may be several interpretations of the data. After further testing and peer review, most interpretations are thrown out. And the last couple or few, are put through the rigors of further scrutiny and testing, until only the best interpretation emerges. And the beauty of it all is that the scrutiny and the testing doesn't ever stop. There is no dogma, not even for scientific theories.