Why can't anyone see this, its like a great delusion.

Zoii · Feb 7, 2018

Nicholas taylor said:
It has become quite evident that Charles Darwin did not explain the origins of life very well. He did a great job of portraying minor variations of natural selection and in many cases he is correct. But his endeavor to convince man that all appearances of a great design can be explained via natural selection is falling apart. The evolving world from its environment is a far cry from the fundamental innovations to the beginning of life.

There have been many great minds in the field of evolution and how things have transformed, but so far any evo explanations of the origins of life are insufficient and limiting as even evolutionists are stuck on the idea of where the genetic information of DNA came from.

Darwin became public with his discoveries on the Origin of Species in the 1850’s. he formed a valid idea of species changing due to their environment. However, the discovery of DNA had not come about until 100 years later in the 1950’s.
For us to now understand how the specified information and complexity of DNA and RNA form the basis of each cell, it seems to me an incredible leap of faith to continue believing that nothing created everything through natural selection.

If you ask most people today, they will say there is no science in the idea of a design or of a God, and apparently there “is” science behind the idea of evolution. I’m yet to see or understand the science of evolution but even without scientific studies, you know as well as I do that you build, you design, you create stuff every single day. So the idea of a design is not that far-fetched. Yet the idea of even 1 protein creating itself by chance is said to be so far beyond impossible it’s hard for an intelligent mind to grasp.

Francis Crick a co-discoverer of the DNA helix, estimated that the chance of even one protein creating itself is 1 in 10 to the pwr of 164. To understand the magnitude of this number, an example is given in the idea of rolling two dice and getting double 6’s 150,000 times in a row. Another example is being blindfolded and picking out the correct particle amongst all particles in the known universe times 2. Many mathematicians accept that 1 in 10 to the 50th power is an impossibility. There are hundreds of different functioning proteins in one cell and hundreds of trillions of cells that perform different functions in the human body.

When you start to think how the hundreds of base pairs perfectly ordered in a double DNA Helix transcribe into hundreds of RNA base pairs that organize the hundreds of amino acids in a specific sequence to create a specific protein to function in a specific way your mind boggles.

But let’s say nothing is impossible, especially with unlimited time. If by some chance that 1 protein created itself at the same time hundreds of other proteins created their selves in the same location to be close enough to form a simple cell. That action would need to have been known ahead of time somehow because the cell would need to know how to eat, digest, excrete and replicate itself in its short lifespan. Otherwise, It may take another quadrillion years to get another go.

Now the theory of evolution is that it took very small steps in conjunction with chance. Granted that this allows a better chance that chance had its way. Although there are many arguments about this still being an impossible process even tho it was slowly creeping along like a mountain building itself. Lets have a look at what natural selection or stuff happening by itself has created.

We don’t live in a gray mush puddle of chemical soup that has no idea of beauty. Everything that has made itself somehow is magnificent. From the stars at night to the sun sets and rises in the day. The blue oceans that we sit and look at all day to individual families with birds, animals, humans, my wife and daughter, consciousness and emotions. The flowers of the field that have no other reason than to portray beauty or the trees that still care enough to keep us alive. Im confused how we look at this thing and laugh at people who believe in a God.

Romans 1:20; For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they are without excuse.

I could be off in my understanding of science, but still, why is the idea of this post being created and designed by a higher intelligence less believable than the letters rearranging themselves overtime to make something understandable? Is not one cell that knew ahead of its existence it was going to be apart of your eye much more complex.
References:
Google search

I support evolution and an old earth. However I draw the line, as you seem to be doing, at the creation of the first cell. To spontaneously form a cell membrane with the necessary organelles for replication - thats incredulous given that nowhere in nature have we ever witnessed such an event occurring since studies in this area began. Its possible but, for me does create some doubts and that intelligent design may be part of the story.

Gene2memE · Feb 8, 2018

Nicholas taylor said:
It has become quite evident that Charles Darwin did not explain the origins of life very well.

That's because he really didn't attempt to. Darwin knew how controversial a topic is - because religion - and he purposely avoided the topic.

In addition, the topic of human origins and evolution was controversial - again, because religion - that he delayed publication of The Descent of Man, both the first edition and the much revised second edition, by years and farmed out editorial revisions to family, friends and confidants so that what he published wasn't too controversial.

Nicholas taylor said:
He did a great job of portraying minor variations of natural selection and in many cases he is correct.

He did more than just that - if you look at his body of work, the development of biological diversity throughout the history of life via descent with modification is an inescapable conclusion.

Nicholas taylor said:
But his endeavor to convince man that all appearances of a great design can be explained via natural selection is falling apart. The evolving world from its environment is a far cry from the fundamental innovations to the beginning of life.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate but related fields. Evolution in the biological sense only occurs once you have life.

Even if a deity created the first basic life (and it would have to have been REALLY BASIC, given the fossil evidence), that in no way renders evolutionary biology invalid in any form.

Nicholas taylor said:
There have been many great minds in the field of evolution and how things have transformed, but so far any evo explanations of the origins of life are insufficient and limiting as even evolutionists are stuck on the idea of where the genetic information of DNA came from.

So, abiogenesis is an unsolved question in biology. So what? Because we don't have an answer now, does that mean we'll never have an answer?

Oh, and "evolutionists" aren't "stuck on the idea of where the genetic information of DNA came from" - DNA is genetic information.

Nicholas taylor said:
Darwin became public with his discoveries on the Origin of Species in the 1850’s. he formed a valid idea of species changing due to their environment. However, the discovery of DNA had not come about until 100 years later in the 1950’s.

Yep, and genetics REINFORCED Darwin's central idea of descent with modification, providing a vehicle - the gene - for the inheritance of characteristics that lead to differential rates of survival and reproductive success.

Nicholas taylor said:
For us to now understand how the specified information and complexity of DNA and RNA form the basis of each cell, it seems to me an incredible leap of faith to continue believing that nothing created everything through natural selection.

Tell me, how do you define and measure "specified complexity" and "specified information". What makes them "specified"?

Nicholas taylor said:
I could be off in my understanding of science

That's an understatment, but its nothing that through reading of properly informed sources cannot fix. I would suggest the NCSE and Berkeley websites on evolution to begin with. If you want some information on free, online, university level courses teaching about evolution, send me a PM.

Nicholas taylor said:
but still, why is the idea of this post being created and designed by a higher intelligence less believable than the letters rearranging themselves overtime to make something understandable?

Because there's plenty of hard evidence for the latter and none for the former?

bhsmte · Feb 8, 2018

KenJackson said:
You missed the point. It's modern science, not religion, that has shown the problem with the 19th century evolution theory.

Looks like you have some catching up to do on the theory of evolution.

DogmaHunter · Feb 8, 2018

Zoii said:
I support evolution and an old earth. However I draw the line, as you seem to be doing, at the creation of the first cell. To spontaneously form a cell membrane with the necessary organelles for replication - thats incredulous given that nowhere in nature have we ever witnessed such an event occurring since studies in this area began.

Just to be sure... you are aware that nobody in the relevant scientific fields is claiming that "first life" consisted of actual full blown cells, right?

Its possible but, for me does create some doubts and that intelligent design may be part of the story.

And on what do you base that on?
Because it kind of sounds like the actual reason why you introduce "intelligent design", is simply ignorance on how first life actually appeared?

Essentially an argument from ignorance.

Jjmcubbin · Feb 8, 2018

Origin of life is as much related to evolution as human physiology is related to Kingdom Monera.

bhsmte · Feb 8, 2018

Jjmcubbin said:
Origin of life is as much related to evolution as human physiology is related to Kingdom Monera.

Then please explain, how the theory of evolution, addresses the origin of first life.

DogmaHunter · Feb 8, 2018

KenJackson said:
Rather than address the issue, you run to credentials.

Young Einstein, before he published, wrote to the author of a science paper that he read challenging the author's conclusions. Rather than replying with explanations, logic or examples, the author replied that some famous scientist had read his paper and had not challenged it. Einstein laughed about this appeal to authority for years.

The difference is that Einstein subsequently went on to become one of the best phycisists ever known to man kind and published his theories in appropriate peer reviewed science papers and thus actually demonstrated his claims and corrections.

Good luck with that.

Evolutionists didn't need to defend probabilities in the 19th and early 20th centuries because the nature of proteins, DNA, genes, gene expression and the molecular machinery that expresses proteins weren't known or understood. Now they are.

And they only confirmed evolution theory to a degree that Darwin would have never been able to even imagine.

So now we need to hold evolutionists' feet to the fire until they address these impossible probabilities.

Alternatively, we could also simply point out how these "probability" objections are born in dishonest creationist circles which are based on strawman versions of evolution....

Appealing to authority might be the only defense you have.

No. There's also all that pesky evidence.....

Jjmcubbin · Feb 8, 2018

bhsmte said:
Then please explain, how the theory of evolution, addresses the origin of first life.

Did you not understand my post? Evolution is concerned with what happens after life begins, how it began is another thing unrelated to evolution.

bhsmte · Feb 8, 2018

Jjmcubbin said:
Did you not understand my post? Evolution is concerned with what happens after life begins, how it began is another thing unrelated to evolution.

My bad.

DogmaHunter · Feb 8, 2018

KenJackson said:
No. In recent years, science has revealed evolution to be wrong, so we're challenging it.

Kind of strange then, that scientists (who do the actual science) don't seem to be aware of that.

Could it perhaps be that the one who told you this, was actually wrong or lying?

Jjmcubbin · Feb 8, 2018

bhsmte said:
My bad.

It's fine. Not everyone knows taxonomy.
Sorry if I appeared harsh.

DogmaHunter · Feb 8, 2018

KenJackson said:
You misunderstand. The theory of intelligent design (ID) has NOTHING to do with the Bible or any sacred text

1. that's not a "theory".

2. google "cdesign proponentsists" and read where that term comes from

3. come back and retract your statement that it has nothing to do with the bible

It's all based on what science, especially molecular biology, has revealed in recent decades.

It is not.

Willis Gravning · Feb 8, 2018

pitabread said:
There has been no mockery in this thread. Just because others don't agree with you, doesn't mean we are necessarily mocking you or your beliefs. We just don't find your arguments particularly compelling.

Yes there was mockery...in post #4 ...'godidit'... it is seen quite often actually.

KenJackson · Feb 8, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
The difference is that Einstein subsequently went on to become one of the best phycisists ever known to man kind and published his theories in appropriate peer reviewed science papers and thus actually demonstrated his claims and corrections.

You're still dishing out arrogance and disdain instead of thinking. You missed the key point I illustrated with the Einstein example.

I'm not sure he had even attained his humble patent office job yet when this happened, but no one had any reason to think he was anyone. Who was he at that point to challenge this scientist who had published?

Einstein, the very person you honor as one of the best physicists, at that point had no reason to base his challenge on credentials. He looked only at the facts of the case and challenged on logic.

He should be an inspiration to us all. I'm unimpressed with the level of arrogance displayed in this thread and the refusal to engage the facts of the case as young, pre-credential Einstein did.

KenJackson said:
Proteins are long, very precise sequences of amino acid molecules.

Does anyone disagree with this statement? Does this display my ignorance? Don't be afraid. Say it.

KenJackson said:
Consider how evolution would add one protein.

Since evolution is usually spoken of with NO SPECIFICS, I decided to address ONE SPECIFIC THING. The mechanism I proposed is hokey, but then the whole of evolution is hokey. I even allowed a non-stop trillion mutations per second to give evolution a fighting chance.

S. cerevisiae is a simple eukaryotic organism with less than 7,000 genes. Man has over 20,000 genes. Did man evolve from a simple organism like this yeast? If so, thousands of new genes had to come into existence somehow by Darwin's "numerous, successive, slight modifications".

So how about it? Can you back up some of that arrogance with a plausible explanation of how new proteins (or more specifically, new genes) come to be?

PsychoSarah · Feb 8, 2018

Jjmcubbin said:
It's fine. Not everyone knows taxonomy.
Sorry if I appeared harsh.

Might have been a matter of the fact that people in the US divide classification into 6 kingdoms, splitting Monera into Archaea and Bacteria. Thus, to anyone that gets their taxonomy education in the US, Monera isn't a kingdom at all.

KenJackson · Feb 8, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
1. that's not a "theory".

2. google "cdesign proponentsists" and read where that term comes from

3. come back and retract your statement that it has nothing to do with the bible

You're referencing a typo in a text book. That does NOT define Intelligent Design (ID). I can't tell if you're playing dumb or if you really don't know anything at all about ID.

The Discovery Institute seems to be the torchbearer for ID. They say this in their FAQ (bold added.):

7. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. ...

ID has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

Speedwell · Feb 8, 2018

KenJackson said:
You're referencing a typo in a text book. That does NOT define Intelligent Design (ID). I can't tell if you're playing dumb or if you really don't know anything at all about ID.

The Discovery Institute seems to be the torchbearer for ID. They say this in their FAQ (bold added.):

ID has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

LOL! ID was concocted by the radical Calvinists at the Discovery Institute to be a Trojan Horse for the insertion of biblical creationism into the public schools. This they called "The Wedge Strategy" the intent of which was to indoctrinate the populace to tolerate the totalitarian theocracy designed for the Discovery Institute by one of their Fellows, the late R. J. Rushdooney. The whole business was exposed in court during Kitzmiller v. Dover. Read the transcript.

If you think there is something to ID and want to pursue it, that's fine. But if you want to invoke the Discovery Institute, realize that you are also invoking their treasonous political agenda.

KenJackson · Feb 8, 2018

Speedwell said:
LOL! ... The whole business was exposed in court during Kitzmiller v. Dover.

ID proponents recognized that with the advances in molecular biology, science alone can soundly make the case that life was designed. Do you really want to stand on a political decision to determine your science? If the judge in the Dover case declared Boyle's law was not science, would you accept his verdict? You accept the word of a politically appointed judge over the facts of science. That's telling.

Notice I'm making my argument based on the facts, on science. You appeal to authority, politics and slanted journalism, not to science.

Speaking of science, how can evolution add new proteins, Speedwell? Thousands of genes have to be added to get from a simple organism to Man. Let's ignore the meandering and misdirection that any random process would do and consider an optimal case.

Let's start with something like S. cerevisiae, which I mentioned earlier, with its less than 7000 genes. To get to man, with our more than 20,000 genes, you have to add more than 13,000 genes. How long did that take? Let's allow four billion years, very generous. Even if evolution went straight from there to here, that's less than 308,000 years per gene.

Can you come up with a path to add the information for a gene in only 308,000 years? In the example I proposed, it couldn't be done in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years.

Look at my math. Where am I wrong? Specifically.

bhsmte · Feb 8, 2018

KenJackson said:
ID proponents recognized that with the advances in molecular biology, science alone can soundly make the case that life was designed. Do you really want to stand on a political decision to determine your science? If the judge in the Dover case declared Boyle's law was not science, would you accept his verdict? You accept the word of a politically appointed judge over the facts of science. That's telling.

Notice I'm making my argument based on the facts, on science. You appeal to authority, politics and slanted journalism, not to science.

Speaking of science, how can evolution add new proteins, Speedwell? Thousands of genes have to be added to get from a simple organism to Man. Let's ignore the meandering and misdirection that any random process would do and consider an optimal case.

Let's start with something like S. cerevisiae, which I mentioned earlier, with its less than 7000 genes. To get to man, with our more than 20,000 genes, you have to add more than 13,000 genes. How long did that take? Let's allow four billion years, very generous. Even if evolution went straight from there to here, that's less than 308,000 years per gene.

Can you come up with a path to add the information for a gene in only 308,000 years? In the example I proposed, it couldn't be done in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years.

Look at my math. Where am I wrong? Specifically.

If ID is science, can you provide the scientific definition of ID.

Also, please provide the falsifiable test, to determine if ID is present.

Speedwell · Feb 8, 2018

KenJackson said:
ID proponents recognized that with the advances in molecular biology, science alone can soundly make the case that life was designed. Do you really want to stand on a political decision to determine your science? If the judge in the Dover case declared Boyle's law was not science, would you accept his verdict? You accept the word of a politically appointed judge over the facts of science. That's telling.

If the facts before him compelled him to that decision, then I would accept it to the degree it was borne out by actual science.

Notice I'm making my argument based on the facts, on science. You appeal to authority, politics and slanted journalism, not to science.

Speaking of science, how can evolution add new proteins, Speedwell? Thousands of genes have to be added to get from a simple organism to Man. Let's ignore the meandering and misdirection that any random process would do and consider an optimal case.

Let's start with something like S. cerevisiae, which I mentioned earlier, with its less than 7000 genes. To get to man, with our more than 20,000 genes, you have to add more than 13,000 genes. How long did that take? Let's allow four billion years, very generous. Even if evolution went straight from there to here, that's less than 308,000 years per gene.

Can you come up with a path to add the information for a gene in only 308,000 years? In the example I proposed, it couldn't be done in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years.

Look at my math. Where am I wrong? Specifically.

You are wrong where these creationist calculations are generally wrong: you assume a flat probability space.

Why can't anyone see this, its like a great delusion.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Code Monkey

Active Member

Newbie

Code Monkey

Active Member

Newbie

Code Monkey

Active Member

Code Monkey

St. Francis of Assisi

Active Member

Chaotic Neutral

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency