What about the DNA evidence?

[stevevw]

yes, just as bats have skin and fur stretched across their limbs. No, only some wings can be flapped, only some wings can functionally power flight. No. Feathers are an integumentary (skin) structure made out of keratin just as mammilian hair is. bats and pteradactyls both have skin based wings. several dozen species. 44 squirrels, 8 opossums, and two primate like animals glide and 1200 or so species of bats. Irrelevantso?Does not follow. All the creatures you have listed have predators they need to escape from.
Many species.

Bats have been found that are 50 million years old and looked the same as today. Their wings are different from flying squirrels in that they have their limbs through the winged area. Their digits are extended and form the wings. The flaps on squirrel are just excess skin that is stretched. The limbs are still used for walking and are merely stretched out to make a parachute type effect. Feathers are detailed and have intricate design much greater than a flap of excess skin. Doesn't matter what they are made of its the design that is the difference.

If all those creatures had predators to escape from so they grew wings why didn't their mates who also had to escape not grow wings or flaps. They survived without them still today. They do more or less the same thing and live the same life, eat the same stuff and yet dont have wings. So whatever advantage the winged ones had isn't really apparent.

So one group separated and got wings because it was a matter of survival but their mates on the ground must have found other ways to escape the predators and they still survived. Doesnt seem to give a great advantage that needed to be taken on in the first place especially if it was a matter of life and death.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because as we know from both the observational Evidence and DNA evidence, species merely vary within their own species niche.

What DNA evidence would convince you that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? If humans and chimps share a common ancestor, what features should we see in their genomes?

Flying squirrels no matter how hard the evolutionists try to say otherwise are still - squirrels.

Humans are still primates, still mammals, and still vertebrates. So why do you have a problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with other species in those groups since they are still the same kind and still variations within that kind?

 

[Loudmouth]

Bats have been found that are 50 million years old and looked the same as today. Their wings are different from flying squirrels in that they have their limbs through the winged area.

We were asked for an example of a wing evolving RIGHT NOW. If we cited a 50 million year old bat then that would not have fit the criteria, now would it?

We have shown you a half-wing in a living species. Half-wings still provide a selectable advantage, contrary to the claims of creationists. It is time creationists fessed up to this.

 

[mzungu]

Bats have been found that are 50 million years old and looked the same as today. Their wings are different from flying squirrels in that they have their limbs through the winged area. Their digits are extended and form the wings. The flaps on squirrel are just excess skin that is stretched. The limbs are still used for walking and are merely stretched out to make a parachute type effect. Feathers are detailed and have intricate design much greater than a flap of excess skin. Doesn't matter what they are made of its the design that is the difference.

If all those creatures had predators to escape from so they grew wings why didn't their mates who also had to escape not grow wings or flaps. They survived without them still today. They do more or less the same thing and live the same life, eat the same stuff and yet dont have wings. So whatever advantage the winged ones had isn't really apparent.

So one group separated and got wings because it was a matter of survival but their mates on the ground must have found other ways to escape the predators and they still survived. Doesnt seem to give a great advantage that needed to be taken on in the first place especially if it was a matter of life and death.

An advantageous trait does not necessarily mean that it is vital for survival. It means that it gives an added advantage. What is so difficult to understand?

An example: A person with a higher education has an advantage over people with lesser education. None of the two groups fall under a life or death category.

 

[Loudmouth]

What Francis Collins believes is His business. Science is not based on Authority of people, it is based upon facts, well tried and true.

Perhaps you should remind your fellow christians of this when the list yet another long list of quote mines in an attemtp to claim that they have the authority of scientists on their side.

The vaste majority of scientists have nothing to do with evolution in their fields of science. The vaste majority of Physicists believe the Theory Evolution is not science at all, they see as a meta-physical pursuit, and quite a few, realize that the Theory of evolution is unviable, because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

You tell us that what scientists believe doesn't matter, then you claim that the theory of evolution is false because scientists say it is false. Could you try to keep a consistent position?

Also, if single celled organisms evolving into multicellular organisms over billions of years is a violation of the 2nd law, then how is it not a violation of that same law when a single cell develops into a full human being in just nine months inside of a mother's womb?

 

[ArtB]

Your evidence for this absurd falsehood is what, exactly? The official statement of the American Physical Society supporting the teaching of evolution and opposing creationism? Or the official statements from the American Geophysical Union, the Society of Physics Students and the American Institute of Physics saying similar things?


No competent physicist thinks that evolution violates the 2nd Law.

I was referring the most prestigious Physicists, not the ones teaching in High School or most colleges whom would lose their jobs if they speak against the Theory of Evolution, by the iron hand of the High Priest Scientists of Evolution who worship Secular Humanism, and these extreme Secularists hold power in academia, and whom would take any tenure whom dare to or not give them tenure, if they do not bow to their God, Evolution., more so today than back then. And scientists whom would never get a tenure in their field of science if they speak openly against evolution. I have a close friend whom is an excellent Biologists. He made a new discovery of evidence in the Biology of an animal that clearly contradicts The Theory of Evolution. He was not allowed by his higher ups to publish that fact in his paper. Another very top physicist wrote a published paper telling young scientists to stop kissing the ass of evolution in their science Papers, Papers that had nothing to do with evolution. Instead of doing real science, young scientists know if they are thought to doubt the Theory of Evolution, they will never get their papers published, and they most likely be Ostracized in the field of science.

Now, I can not help seeing that every Christian or religious website has permanent people like you who are pro-evolution, who come and badger Christians, Jews, Muslims, whom all believe in Creation, and badger them like you do, and pooh-pooh their views and arguments. Is this not true. Who asked you to do this? Be honest or lose credibility.

If you believe what you wrote, present the precise science evidence that you obviously know that demonstrates The Theory of Evolution. And in detail why you are convinced that evolution is a fact.

Appeals to authority is not acceptable.

BTW, I gave you a big piece of evidence why Evolution. For a small protein consisting of 100 amino acids has a 1 out of 10^65 probability of being capable of folding. If it does not fold, it is worthless for living creatures.

I noticed you ignored this very strong evidence against the possibility of evolution by chance mutations. It takes intelligence to order the molecules by a very intelligent Being. If you found a telescope, you would think its' origin was made by an intelligent being or beings. You would never assume that it evolved into existence. Our bodies have far more specified complex arrangements than a telescope.

And tell us why you are on this forum?

and

What business is it yours that we believe in God?

My atheist friends agree that Creationism would be true if they knew a God existed. Do you believe in the existence of God, sfs;64665079?

 

[stevevw]

We were asked for an example of a wing evolving RIGHT NOW. If we cited a 50 million year old bat then that would not have fit the criteria, now would it?

We have shown you a half-wing in a living species. Half-wings still provide a selectable advantage, contrary to the claims of creationists. It is time creationists fessed up to this.

But it isn't even 1/2 wings, they are fully functioning gliders. Are you saying that the ability to glide turned into wings and the ability to fly. I see them as separate traits that belong to the animals that have them.

There has been no ancestor found for the bat and no fossil record showing how it got its wings. They have only found a complete detailed winged bat fossil which is 60 million years old. So it had the same complexity as it does today. No need to get an advantage and no need to morph from a simpler creature, It was and always has been a bat that could fly some with sonar ability.

Evolutionists cannot show any kind of transition between paws used for standing and running, and hand-wings used for flying. There are no fossils and there are no transitions. How would survival of the fittest produce this. At some point elongating front toes would interfere with its movement long before they could become the ribs of functional wings.

How does hanging upside down have any advantage for survival. Birds perch very well right-side up. How does "survival of the fittest" turn an animal upside down, with all the physiological changes necessary for maintaining that position? Its harder to eat and swallow and all the blood will rush to your head. Yet bats eat, sleep, and mate upside down, and many also give birth in that position.

There is no advantage with these traits that would cause their genetics to take this on. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was referring the most prestigious Physicists, not the ones teaching in High School or most colleges whom would lose their jobs if they speak against the Theory of Evolution,

And those physicists are . . .?

Why don't you find a single physics textbook that says evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

What law of physics is violated when a substition, deletion, or insertion occurs in a genome, and how is it violated?

 

[Heissonear]

I was referring the most prestigious Physicists, not the ones teaching in High School or most colleges whom would lose their jobs if they speak against the Theory of Evolution, by the iron hand of the High Priest Scientists of Evolution who worship Secular Humanism, and these extreme Secularists hold power in academia, and whom would take any tenure whom dare to or not give them tenure, if they do not bow to their God, Evolution., more so today than back then. And scientists whom would never get a tenure in their field of science if they speak openly against evolution. I have a close friend whom is an excellent Biologists. He made a new discovery of evidence in the Biology of an animal that clearly contradicts The Theory of Evolution. He was not allowed by his higher ups to publish that fact in his paper. Another very top physicist wrote a published paper telling young scientists to stop kissing the ass of evolution in their science Papers, Papers that had nothing to do with evolution. Instead of doing real science, young scientists know if they are thought to doubt the Theory of Evolution, they will never get their papers published, and they most likely be Ostracized in the field of science.

Now, I can not help seeing that every Christian or religious website has permanent people like you who are pro-evolution, who come and badger Christians, Jews, Muslims, whom all believe in Creation, and badger them like you do, and pooh-pooh their views and arguments. Is this not true. Who asked you to do this? Be honest or lose credibility.

If you believe what you wrote, present the precise science evidence that you obviously know that demonstrates The Theory of Evolution. And in detail why you are convinced that evolution is a fact.

Appeals to authority is not acceptable.

BTW, I gave you a big piece of evidence why Evolution. For a small protein consisting of 100 amino acids has a 1 out of 10^65 probability of being capable of folding. If it does not fold, it is worthless for living creatures.

I noticed you ignored this very strong evidence against the possibility of evolution by chance mutations. It takes intelligence to order the molecules by a very intelligent Being. If you found a telescope, you would think its' origin was made by an intelligent being or beings. You would never assume that it evolved into existence. Our bodies have far more specified complex arrangements than a telescope.

And tell us why you are on this forum?

and

What business is it yours that we believe in God?

My atheist friends agree that Creationism would be true if they knew a God existed. Do you believe in the existence of God, sfs;64665079?

Absolutely well said.

Why are these revellers continuously posting what they do - many blatantly ridicule and degrade the non-Naturalists.

They are welcome to comment and prove their point or side, but they do far more.

They think they have "truth" leadership here. And this is where their Scientism based science is over promoted. Shear bias to their view. Complete disregard for other views.

Evidence based they may say is their reasons. They lie. I've shown them walking by faith in several "natural science" matters. Such was not evidence based.

It's time for the Mods to remove some of these perpetrators of only Scientism and Naturalism in blatant attacks and ridicule of anything thing else that opposes them.

Where is the proof, the evidence, life started on earth? But read these revellers comments!

Where is the proof about Evolution actually occurred in the past 500 million years, by actual fossil evidence? But still they revellers of any other view except Evolution is real.

Overbearing, ridicule, said people are not a scientist, a geologist, a stratigrapher, continuous blatant replies and comments, and all the other captured post remarks.

Out with you if you keep such aggression. The Mods to kick them out. Who are they serving or aiding?

There are at least 3 that are the ones who twist all non-Naturalists replies. Kick them out. They are here for no purpose but to tear down open discussion and other points of view than theirs.

.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it isn't even 1/2 wings, they are fully functioning gliders.

It isn't a fully functional wing for powered flight which makes it 1/2 a wing. All you have done is show that there are selectable advantages to having 1/2 a wing, such as gliding. You have refuted your own argument.

Are you saying that the ability to glide turned into wings and the ability to fly.

Are you saying that wings incapable of powered flight are useless?

I see them as separate traits that belong to the animals that have them.

You were claiming that a wing incapable of full on, powered flight is a trait that didn't exist in any species.

There has been no ancestor found for the bat and no fossil record showing how it got its wings.

You were claiming that there could be no transitional stage since a wing incapable of powered flight could not be selected for since it would have no function. Care to retract that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It looks like Heissonear is having a hissy fit again.

None of your charges against naturalists is true, well perhaps we do laugh at you a bit, but then your own hypocrisy leaves you wide open to that.

Here is a suggestion. Why not try to argue logically and honestly for a start. The first thing you should do is to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence has a special definition, a very good working definition, that was brought about by deniers like you. Once again, I would be more than happy to help you to learn what is evidence.

The fact is that all of the evidence supports evolution. You seem to be afraid to learn what evidence is so that you can continue in your dishonest diatribes against evolution. An honest person would learn what is and what is not evidence so these charges would not need to be brought against you time after time.

So, would you like to learn about evidence? I can help.

 

[Loudmouth]

Absolutely well said.

Why are these revellers continuously posting what they do - many blatantly ridicule and degrade the non-Naturalists.

Now they play the persecution card to avoid dealing with the DNA evidence.

Evidence based they may say is their reasons. They lie. I've shown them walking by faith in several "natural science" matters. Such was not evidence based.

We have the evidence:

"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 over 200,000 retroviral insertions with chimps at exactly the same location in each of our genomes. With ERV's alone, we have over 200,000 pieces of evidence.

My guess is that you will never discuss this evidence, and then bear false witness once again when you claim there is no evidence.

Where is the proof, the evidence, life started on earth?

If the first life was created by a deity it wouldn't change the evidence demonstrating that humans share common ancestry with other species.

Where is the proof about Evolution actually occurred in the past 500 million years, by actual fossil evidence?

What is the title of this thread?

 

[ArtB]

Perhaps you should remind your fellow christians of this when the list yet another long list of quote mines in an attemtp to claim that they have the authority of scientists on their side.

Do not Scientists quote from their peers?

You are rather ignorant of what you posted. It is proper to cite evidence and provide the author of the evidence to challenge what may be true or false evidence.

You tell us that what scientists believe doesn't matter, then you claim that the theory of evolution is false because scientists say it is false. Could you try to keep a consistent position?

I am correct. I write that what scientists believe doesn't matter. What counts is the scientific evidence they bring to the table as evidence, it must be subject to the process of falsification, and if it is not falsifiable by high standards, it is sound science.

Also, if single celled organisms evolving into multicellular organisms over billions of years is a violation of the 2nd law, then how is it not a violation of that same law when a single cell develops into a full human being in just nine months inside of a mother's womb?

Time does not improve things, specially life itself.

The 2nd Law is simply the result of a greater principle of Physics: "Massive amounts of Molecules, atoms, atomic particles, etc., tend over time to flow (i.e. rearrange themselves) from states (i.e. arrangements) of lower probability to states of ever increasing probability.

This principle not only makes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics TRUE, it applies equally to Information Theory because conveyance of information is dependant on molecular arrangements.

Application of the above principle to energy flow is often what is meant, in schools, by the 2nd Law. That is, the flow of molecular states in contact will flow from states of energy differential to the much more probable states of energy equilibrium. When energy equilibrium is reached, work can no longer be done.

However, for states of configuration of molecules, the principle of molecular flow will also always proceed from states of lower probability to states of ever increasing probability.

This is because the 2nd Law is a consequence of the behavior of large collections of molecules which behave in accordance with the laws of probability. The molecules logically will flow over time from low probability states to higher probability states. If there were many more `orderly' states that molecules can arrange themselves in than there were `disorderly' states for the molecules to arrange themselves into, then the natural flow would be from states of disorder to states of order. If this were true and we also define "Orderly" as performing functions needed for the origin of life and for the origin species, then Evolution could be possible.

For example, when a large vase falls and smashes onto a stone floor, it would produce little tea cups if the probability of the molecules arranging themselves into cups was much higher as compared to any other possible configurations. But the laws of physics being what they are, The vase breaks up into many pieces of varying sizes and shapes that will be meaningless in terms of performing a useful function for human beings. The molecules of the vase have "naturally" undergone a change in arrangement from a specified complexity that performed a function for humans to a more probable disordered chaotic functionless arrangement.

Evolutionists believe that inanimate matter must have, through natural processes only, spontaneously generated the first life-form, and that over time, the offspring of this first life-form must have undergone numerous mutations in such manner as to have spontaneously generated new information in the RNA/DNA that provided new classes of proteins and instructions needed to originate every type of lifeform that has ever existed on this planet. Leading evolutionists agree that each step necessary for the spontaneous generation of life must be such that the molecular flow must run from states of lower probability to molecular states of ever higher probability. This must also be true for the spontaneous generation of new classes of proteins and the injection of new coded information into the DNA, as would be necessary to bring about new evolved body plans (i.e. creature types).

Distinguished scientist and teacher, an expert on origins, A.E. Wilder-Smith stated:
"What is the difference between a stick, which is dead, and an
orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has
teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to
increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy,..."

Teleonomy is the information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and a purpose. Teleonomy can use matter and energy to produce order and specified complexity. It is Creation's ordering principle. Evolutionists have failed to discern any such ordering principle for macro-evolution, a major and critical deficiency with evolution. As Dr. A.E, Wilder-Smith points out, this ordering principle does not reside in matter itself, matter is not creative.
"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings
of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical
workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not
reside in the atoms or the molecules"

Indeed, in their efforts to demonstrate scientifically that Evolution, and its necessary parent: "The Spontaneous Generation of Life", both result from a reasonable flow of molecules from states of lower probability to states of ever increasing, they have produced scientific results that demonstrate the opposite.

The Theory of Evolution demands that since the very earliest life, new classes of proteins must have come into existence and new instructions must be continually encoded into DNA to produce novel physical features, organs, traits that we know have come to exist.

Hubert Yockey, in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65.

Such a probability is certainly very damaging to any possibility of macro-evolution being at all plausible. To counter this, a scientist with excellent mathematical skills, Mr. Ken Dill, using different assumptions than Yockey, arrived at a 1 in 10^15 probability of finding via an undirected search a protein molecule
the size of cytochrome C, which under other reasonable assumptions may occur as frequently as once every 32 years.

Yockey's analysis had more support from actual studies on varying amino acids in cytochrome C, but this was inconclusive and Dill's analysis may be correct. Hard experimental data was needed to resolve this issue and Sauer et. al. provided the solid empirical data which turned out to confirm Yockey's analysis.

Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations their was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose was the 92 residue lambda repressor.

Sauer et. al. calculated that:

"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for the entire 92 residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."

Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.

Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A. Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86, 2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T. Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.

This hard science is a striking confirmation of Yockey's theoretical work

In summing up, I quote creationists Professors Percival Davis (Ph.D., Life Sciences) and Dean Kenyon (Ph.D. Biology):

"These calculations [Sauer's] showed that the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1/10^65, a striking confirmation of Yockey's calculations. It means all proteins that have been examined to date, either by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are in fact no "stepping stones"! In other words, an undirected search will not hit upon any of the end protein sequences sought in the time allowed by the age of the universe. The various functional classes of proteins apparently are so isolated, they could not have risen from one another."

(Of Pandas and People, 1993 edition).

The 2nd Law falsifies Evolution. It falsifies abiogenesis and Evolution in that life as we observe it requires a flow of molecular arrangements from high probability molecular arrangements to ones of extraordinarily low probability states. In terms of energy, there is not enough energy and time in our galaxy (or Universe) to perform the work needed to make an undirected search for abiogenesis or the above described 'protein sequences' to find the necessary series of molecular arrangements reasonable probable.

The 2nd law is also serious problem for those who hold to spontaneous generation:

Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `Vital Dust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generation must be certain that each step of the process flows from lower probability to higher probability so as not to violate the 2nd law.

According to the eminent information theoretician & evolutionist Yockey:
" An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; du Nouy,1947; Prigogine, and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states which are less probable to those which are more probable. Therefore hot bodies cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding."

 

[ArtB]

Part 2:

Many evolutionists often ignorantly declare planet Earth is an open system with plenty of flow through energy needed to continuously perform work. They proclaim creationists are stupid when it comes to science because they are seemingly unaware that the 2nd Law applies only to closed system.

Creationists have always agreed that there is more than sufficient energy available for living processes to occur. Those evolutionists who are ardent anti-creationists who write the anti-creation literature serve up a straw man and have played a clever word game by carelessly focusing on 'closed systems', 'open systems', the earth, the sun, crystal formation, etc. to refute an argument never made by creationists in order to lead people into thinking that creation scientists are not capable scientists. From reading posts written on newsgroups and discussion forums, it appears that their misinformation campaign has been very successful.

The problem evolutionists have is that they simply know the second law is a fact and they 'KNOW' evolution is a fact, therefore the two must be compatible. This forces them to believe that order and specified complexity arises out of chaos, that nonsense generates sense, that information has arises over and over continuously and spontaneously within biological systems. Thus they end up snowing the unwary, publishing and teaching nonsense arguments that deny the true science. The Mass Media run the by Secular Humanists media swallows it whole and present it as fact.


I don't care how much the sun shines on it, I would not invest money or time in any patent that violates the second law, nor would I want an electrical system installed in my home which violates the 2nd law.

In its differential form, the second law states that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not.

To put it bluntly, if something moves, entropy increases! All real processes increase entropy. All real processes are therefore irreversible.


Harvard Scientist Dr. John Ross wrote in a letter published in the 'Chemistry and Engineering News'(July27, 1980). Stated:

"There are no known violations to the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ... There is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important that this error does not perpetuate itself."


Similar to the example of the broken "Vase" I mentioned above, Physicist Richard P. Feynman uses a similar example to explain that entropy flows from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability.

Professor Feynman gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases.

This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you film the gases mixing in the container and then play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen.

Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so are all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumber the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of much higher probability. From order to disorder.

Atheist and evolutionist Isaac Asimov, once described the 2nd Law this way:

"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten out a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again, very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out - all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

To satisfy the second law, more is required than simply having an open system and a flow-through of energy. The flow through of energy is a necessary condition for reversing entropy in a system, but not a sufficient one. Sunshine may flow into Asimov's room, and the heat may be turned on at night, but neither will reverse the increasing entropy in that room. In fact, the sun's energy speeds up the increase of entropy of the paint on the exterior of my home and inside Asimov's room.

Evolutionist and Scientist John Patterson also is aware about the problem the 2nd Law imposes on The Theory of Evolution, when He published the following comment:
"It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill processes, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes remains a challenging one."

This is the problem creationists have with the 2nd law. And as you can see, the problem concerns evolutionists as well.

I think Asimov's example is most appropriate. Rooms are made to perform a function, and a large collection of dust is not the function most people have in mind. For most people, that room will have to be swept clean, the blankets or table cloths washed, the furniture dusted and/or repaired, the walls painted. Thus work must be done for the room to be restored to its' original function. An engine must be provided to perform that work
(in our case human beings) and the engine will expend energy in doing the work and must itself consume energy to also function.

Disorder is a loss of function, very broadly speaking. The loss can be order, or specified complexity, or information, or energy.

I'm getting older, my body does not function as well as it use to do. When I play ball, my mind knows instinctively what to do, but my body no longer responds like it use to do. I'm a lot slower now. My body is undergoing decay, even as I live.

I believe the universe was the work of a Creator, and that the universe is temporal as science has demonstrated. God made it very good, but it was not perfect, though it fits in His perfect will. The universe has been decaying ever since creation of the universe was completed. I believe intelligent life, God, preceded our universe. God did what the Laws of Physics and chance cannot do, create a universe with extremely very low entropy. Since then the universe has continually undergone decay as mutations have created defects that are inheritable and are accumulative with other mutational defects.

We are born to die, if not by disease, or by murder, or by a life taking accident, then we will die by mutations causing deterioration to our cells.

The ultimate disorder is separation from God, our true Father. The Holy Scripture teaches that Jesus came so that we may have eternal life, a free gift from God to all who accept it through His only begotten Son Jesus (Yeshua), an abundantly joyous and good life. And He knew us before we were born, and He prepared a place for us to be received into eternal fellowship with an abundance of life, peace and joy. But most interesting is the revelation that the apostle Paul wrote of, namely, all things that undergoes corruption can inherit the place God has prepared for us, for all is incorruptible there and we are promised that nothing there will undergo decay. God dwells there and there will be no sun, stars, or other heat source, but God's radiance will be there to sustain all things. There will be no entropy there. Thus the ultimate order is being in God's presence.
​

 

[ArtB]

Science says abiogenesis can not spontaneous generate a first life. No

The science against this abiogenesis is so overwhelming to the point where science is clearly saying NO! to the spontaneous generation of life. It requires a very high level of intelligence to arrange as needed for life to come into existence.

Evolutionists have distanced themselves from Abiogenesis. The evidence against it is overwhelming.

As with so much of evolution, the misinformation on the topics related to the "spontaneous generation of life", also known as "Abiogenesis", have been so often repeated instead of being deleted, especially in school curriculums and textbooks, not to mention sites like these, that science fiction has been, for far too long, masquerading as science.

Let's start with famous "Miller-Urey" experiment and update it from there.

An important pioneer in scientific research on abiogenesis is Alexander I. Oparin. In 1924, he determined what chemicals must be in the earth atmosphere for amino acids to be formed (e.g. methane, hydrogen, and ammonia) and what chemicals ought not to be there that will prohibit the formation of amino acids (e.g. Oxygen). Scientists like A.I. Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane proposed a sequence for life's origins in the 1920's, from complicated molecules in an oily liquid he called coacervate droplets, to the first protocell, to enzymes, to finally genes.

Miller prepared a controlled experiment to observe what complicated molecules' might be produced under Oparin-Haldane's proposed ideal pre-biotic atmosphere. Sure enough, in an assumed atmosphere that was DESIGNED to produce amino acids, it was not at all surprising that amino acids formed:

The Products of the Miller Experiment: Tar 85%
Carboxylic acids not important to life 13.0%
Glycine 1.05%
Alanine 0.85%
Glutamic acid trace
Aspartic acid trace
Valine trace
Leucine trace
Serine trace
Proline trace
Treonine trace

Note: Glycine and Alanine are the two simplest amino acids of the twenty proteinous amino acids found in living creatures.

Miller's results were well received and widely reported by the mass media to be a major confirmation of evolution and of life arising spontaneously without a Creator. It became a valuable weapon in the evolutionists' propaganda arsenal for brain washing and brow beating the public and more so, unwary students, into accepting the legitimacy of Evolution.

The Miller-Urey experiment that produced amino acids under laboratory controlled conditions has been misrepresented in many High school, College and other science textbooks. It is often presented that this experiment demonstrates that amino acids, necessary for life, form naturally in a primitive atmosphere. It is usually further asserted or implied that this experiment demonstrates that abiogenesis is highly probable and that this further demonstrates that evolution (Darwinian) is indeed a fact. Of course such textbooks are nonsense; this experiment demonstrates nothing of the kind. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates exactly the opposite, it revealed the overwhelming difficulties that exist with the view that life can form naturally from non-living chemicals.

The key word above is 'controlled'. Intelligent control is what gets one the outcome they are looking for.

Using a system of glass flasks, Steven Miller attempted to simulate Alexander Oparin's ideal atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of H2O, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the reaction. This trap prevented whatever chemicals formed from being destroyed by the energy source used to create them. Eventually, Miller was able to produce the above described mixture, containing the amino acids described above, and the building blocks of proteins.

This was as good as the science ever got for the evolutionists and their experiments relating to abiogenesis. From now on things get much worse for the Evolutionists. What the public and students have not been told about what science actually knows concerning the 'origin of life'.

To achieve his results, Miller had to use something that material evolutionists 'KNOW' did not exist in the pre-biotic earth: intelligence and mental "know-how". He drew on decades of knowledge of organic chemistry in setting up his experiment. The proportions of the various gases used, the actual apparatus, the position of the electrodes, the intensity of the spark, and the chemical trap, were all carefully adjusted to create maximum yield from the experiment.

Many attempts by Stanley Miller failed to produce any amino acids or any other building blocks of life.

In an effort to make his Oparin atmosphere to mimic actual atmospheric conditions, Miller arranged fro his electrical discharge to simulate lightning. After a week of these lightning type electrical discharges in the reaction chamber, the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a gummy black substance made up of billions of carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar, a common nuisance in organic reactions.

However, no amino acids used by living systems or other building blocks of life, were produced on these first attempts. In his own words, Miller stated "An attempt was made to simulate lightning discharge by building up a large quantity of charge on a condenser until the spark jumped the gap between the electrodes. ... Very few organic compounds were produced and this discharge was not investigated further." from Robert Shapiro: "Origins, A Skeptics Guide ..." P. 103. 1986.

Only by constantly readjusting and fine tuning his apparatus and by using a continuous electrical charge that Miller eventually obtained the amino acids indicated it above. Even when using the same gas mixture and a continuous electrical discharge, Miller did not obtain any positive results until placing the apparatus in a different order. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, noted that with the use of "Intelligence" and "Know How:" on the part of the “origin of life” experimenters to achieve the results they desire prejudiced the results of their "Origin of Life" type experiments:

(P. 102-103)

"another significant factor also influences the products being formed in an experiment of this type, but is less recognized, selection by the experimenter."

"One clear message should emerge from this discussion. A variety of results may be possible from the same general type of experiment. The experimenter, by manipulating apparently unimportant variables, can affect the outcome profoundly. The data that he reports may be valid, but if only these results are communicated, a false impression may arise concerning the universality of the process. This situation was noticed by Creationist writer, Martin Lubenow, who commented: "I am convinced that in every origin of life experiment devised by evolutionists, the intelligence of the experimenter is involved in such a way as to prejudice the experiment.""

Now the science learned from the Miller-Urey negates rather than support Abiogenesis.

(1). The tar tends to fix the amino acids so that they are not that free to Bond. Bonding between amino acids must happen if theses amino acids are to form any kind of molecular structures leading to a replicating life form.

(2). Miller's amino acids, even if they were capable of bonding, are useless as a basis for abiogenesis.

The amino acids formed were racemates. That is, each amino acid was produced in equal quantities of Dextrorotary (Right handed Molecules) and Levorotary (Left handed) molecules. Furthermore, both right and left handed amino acids bond to each other equally well. However, all of life's proteins are made from left-handed amino acid chains. If just a single right handed amino acid molecule binds to a forming three dimensional chain of left handed amino acids, that right handed amino acid is lethal to the formation of the three dimensional chain.

"Without exception, all of Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous generation of life. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids that form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions. This is scientific fact." (1)

All amino acids that form by natural causes alone are racemized. Even those found on comets are racemized. Racemization is driven by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by which racemization is the equilibrium state.

Though the above is fatal to any scenario for abiogenesis, science continues to bring more bad news for the evolutionist’s conception of origins.

(3) Oparin's ideal atmosphere of Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and without Oxygen, never existed! We've known for at least the past forty years that the pre-biotic atmosphere had oxygen that is lethal to the formation of life's building blocks, and it had at best, only traces of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen.

(4) Ultra-violet light would have destroyed amino acids formed in the atmosphere, and the chemicals of the ocean would have destroyed life's building blocks that ended up there.

Along the lines of beating a dead horse, the evolutionist’s hopes for establishing abiogenesis gets even more bad news from science:

(5) When amino acids bond together in pre-biotic experiments, they do so in several different ways using several types of links as the molecular bonds. Yet, only the type of link known as the ‘alpha link’ is used in all proteins of living organisms. In origin of life experiments, the alpha link is greatly outnumbered by the other types of links. Even if we greatly favor the evolutionist’s possibilities by allowing for every link in a forming 100 unit polypeptide chain to have a 50-50 chance of being an alpha type link, the probability of getting a 100 unit amino acid chain using only alpha links is just one in 10 to the 30th power in a super-ideal mix of only left handed amino acids.

(6) There are 20 amino acids exclusively used in all living organisms. These are called proteinous amino acids. There are hundreds of amino acids that are not proteinous. Stephen Gould asked, "Why only a few amino acids in organisms when the [primordial] soup must have contained at least ten times as many." Amino acid molecules can link-up (polymerize) to form polypeptide chains. Those with certain structure and characteristics are called functional proteins. Functional proteins will consist of chains of 90 to 1000 amino acids. In a soup containing proteinous amino acids and 10 times the number of non-proteinous amino acids (which Gould says must have been there) then the probability of getting a functional protein consisting of only 100 proteinous amino acids is one in 10 to the 100th power. This is just not going to happen.

(7) Handedness is only one of the hurdles to overcome on the way to life. The real big one is the origin of information, which is fundamentally different from matter and molecules, even if you could get exclusively left handed molecules. We want to know how books get written, not just how paper and ink are formed. Of course if you can't get paper, you can't write anything on it, but the really critical thing is the message, and not the Molecules, molecules simply do not care about forming messages.
​

 

[Loudmouth]

Do not Scientists quote from their peers?

When they do so, they do so honestly. What they don't do is pull the quotes out of context to make it appear that they are saying something different than what they really believe. However, creationists don't mind using quotes dishonestly. That's the problem.

And as you say, deal with the facts. Why don't you start presenting some facts?

Time does not improve things, specially life itself.

Show me a single physics textbook or peer reviewed physics paper that defines the 2nd law in that fashion.

The 2nd Law is simply the result of a greater principle of Physics: "Massive amounts of Molecules, atoms, atomic particles, etc., tend over time to flow (i.e. rearrange themselves) from states (i.e. arrangements) of lower probability to states of ever increasing probability.

You forgot the part about it being a closed system. You can go from high probability arrangements to low probability arrangements by adding energy to the system. That is why refrigerators work. That is why single cells are able to develop into full human beings over the span of 9 months.

If you haven't noticed, there is a massive fireball about 90 million miles away dumping energy into Earth's system, including life.

Application of the above principle to energy flow is often what is meant, in schools, by the 2nd Law. That is, the flow of molecular states in contact will flow from states of energy differential to the much more probable states of energy equilibrium. When energy equilibrium is reached, work can no longer be done.

Last I checked, the Earth and life are not at equilibrium. Biology is an open system where tons of energy are being dumped in which allows for negative entropy.

Distinguished scientist and teacher, an expert on origins, A.E. Wilder-Smith stated:[
"What is the difference between a stick, which is dead, and an
orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has
teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to
increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy,..."

Please present data.

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings
of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical
workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not
reside in the atoms or the molecules"

Still no data.

Indeed, in their efforts to demonstrate scientifically that Evolution, and its necessary parent: "The Spontaneous Generation of Life", both result from a reasonable flow of molecules from states of lower probability to states of ever increasing, they have produced scientific results that demonstrate the opposite.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with whether or not life evolved. The first life could have been created by a deity, and then evolved into the species we see today. If this happened, the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

The Theory of Evolution demands that since the very earliest life, new classes of proteins must have come into existence and new instructions must be continually encoded into DNA to produce novel physical features, organs, traits that we know have come to exist.

Show me a single DNA difference between humans and chimps that could not have been produced by evolution. Just one.

 

[ArtB]

Again, what I wrote above from Robert Sauers M.I.T. Team and Information expert Hubert Yockey whose theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65, even after assuming the most ideal conditions all amino acids are left handed, all necessary amino acids are present, that only alpha bonds occurred, and all chemicals and/or energy that could neutralize or destroy the amino acids are not present.

And, again from my above post, Yockey's theoretical work is confirmed with the Hard Science of Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. Upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations their was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose was the 92 residue lambda repressor.

Sauer et. al. calculated that:

"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for the entire 92 residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."

They achieved similar results with another short protein.

Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.

Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A. Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86, 2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T. Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.

This hard science is a striking confirmation of Professor Yockey's theoretical work that tell us that the probability of a mixture of solely proteinous right handed amino acids being arranged in a sequence (by non-directed means, i.e. materialistic evolution) that provides a function (i.e. message) necessary to produce living organisms is a minimum of 1 in 10^63, and decreases exponentially for much larger proteins (e.g. Hemoglobin).

Thus this is another insurmountable stubbling block to a materialistic evolutionary pathway from racemized amino acids of proteinous and non-proteinous proteins amino ever evolving into an assembly of purely proteinous amino acids, that connect with just the right bonds, into the correct sequences of needed for a variety of functional proteins necessary for life. And even if natural causes could bring it to this point (which they can't), you still need the machinery to cause these extremely rare proteinous sequences to FOLD. And why would such folding machines ever exist, waiting for the right proteins to arrive over very long periods of time.


Beyond the above, there are other scientific facts that drive more nails into the coffin of the concept abiogenesis.

To make life, we need amino acids, sugars, bases, and phosphates. This gives us several catch 22's. You need formaldehyde to make sugars, but formaldehyde fixes amino acids so that they do not react. Methane polymerizes formaldehyde, but must be present to make amino acids. Amino acids plus bases destroys formaldehyde. Calcium and magnesium in our oceans destroy phosphates; you can't get phosphates in oceans. Energy needed to make amino acids also destroys the amino acids.

R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Pre-biotic Nucleic Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the implausible conditions under which they are conducted:

"Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However, these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them."

The above is much more than enough to convince all reasonable people that abiogenesis is scientifically unfeasible. Louis Pasteur is correct when he gave us the biogenetic law that states that life only comes from life. It takes intelligence and 'know how' to create life. Non-thoughtful processes can not create life because those processes are controlled by the Laws of Physics and Chemistry and they can not place the necessary boundary conditions on the laws of physics and Chemistry to form a living being. Only intelligent causes can do that and only living intelligent beings can provide intelligent causes.

What the laws of chemistry and physics tell us is that the most profound scientific statement ever written on the origin of life is: "In the beginning, G-d Created...".

Only intelligence, know how, fore-knowledge, and ability can place molecules in the correct order for life, as we know it, to exist.

The Theory of Evolution is a fantasy for Secular Humanists, whom seek a reasonable worldview, but it is not true!!!

The End!

 

[mzungu]

What the laws of chemistry and physics tell us is that the most profound scientific statement ever written on the origin of life is: "In the beginning, G-d Created...".

Only intelligence, know how, fore-knowledge, and ability can place molecules in the correct order for life, as we know it, to exist.

The End!

And this is where any semblance of science stops. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry are scientific laws and have no relation to a book written by bronze age goat herders who believed the earth was flat and snakes talked. The wolf has finally shed his sheep's skin.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, what I wrote above from Robert Sauers M.I.T. Team and Information expert Hubert Yockey whose theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65, even after assuming the most ideal conditions all amino acids are left handed, all necessary amino acids are present, that only alpha bonds occurred, and all chemicals and/or energy that could neutralize or destroy the amino acids are not present.

"Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254)."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

If you read that same reference, you will find that human and yeast cytochrome c differ by 40%, and yet you can replace yeast cytochrom c with human cytochrome c and the yeast don't miss a beat. More importantly, when we compare cytochrome c between species we get the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. You are pointing to a data set that unquestionably evidences evolution.

This is the DNA evidence you keep ignoring.

 

[Michael]

Beyond the above, there are other scientific facts that drive more nails into the coffin of the concept abiogenesis.

Do you at least accept the fact the the origin of DNA, and the concept of evolution aren't one and the same concept? In other words, do you accept the possibility that abiogenesis theory is false, and evolutionary theory is true?