Why evolution doesn't work.

Originally posted by Rising Tree


Well then.  Peruse this site for some powerful scientific evidence against junk science/environmentalism.

Click to expand...

What a terrible thing it is to want less pollution...

I'm sorry, but I have seen no evidence that God will protect the unbron from excessive mercury and arsenic in groundwater, etc.

Why noit "err" on the side of caution?

Originally posted by Rising Tree
Attempting to prove that my brother is my sibling is one thing.

Attempting to prove that a random Joe is my 15th cousin is a different story.

Click to expand...

Why?

I'm really growing tired of seeing this.   Just because the scientific community accepts a theory does not automatically make it true.

Click to expand...

I grow tired of fringe fanatics insisting that because thy disagree with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that they are right.

First of all, the evolutionists have lied more times that we can shake a stick at.  Second of all, they're the ones who get billions of dollars for research, not creationists, so it only makes sense that our camp is going to mess up from time to time. 

Click to expand...

Please support accusation of lies.

RT:
"Do you realize that I only share 2^-(15+1) = 0.00153% of my DNA with my 15th cousin, assuming no inbreeding along the way? "

Originally posted by chickenman
so you mean you are in fact more closely related to a chimpanzee, to which you share at least 97 percent of your DNA, than to your 15th cousin?

or is it that your calculation is way off?

Click to expand...

Indeed. I am always surprised at the many bizarre 'matter-of-fact', yet totally bogus, claims creationists make.

And the utter confidence they project while making them...

Hi Chase,

Maybe at some point you can finish up these threads:

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000003.html

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000055.html


Of probable interest to all, especially those "interested" in biochemistry and evolution, M. Denton (yes, that one) has recently co-authored a paper in which those "improbability" claims of creationists are now on even less sure footing than they were originally:

J Theor Biol 2002 Dec 7;219(3):325-342

The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian
Conception of Evolution by Natural Law.

DENTON MJ, MARSHALL CJ, LEGGE M.

Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, 56, Dunedin, New Zealand

Before the Darwinian revolution many biologists considered organic forms to be determined by natural law like atoms or crystals and therefore necessary, intrinsic and immutable features of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. The search for the natural determinants of organic form-the celebrated "Laws of Form"-was seen as one of the major tasks of biology. After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics."
The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form. We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed.

Lucaspa,

Thank you very much for replying to my post--I do appreciate it. And it's good to know someone who has a Ph.D in biochemistry. However, I would like to say that your attitude turned me off somewhat. As a matter of fact, I did read the paper, I photocopied it. It had been a long time since I read it (a couple months) and I did not readily identify the abstract. Whoever told me you quoted it said it was recent so I thought it might be Reader and Joyce, "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides," Nature 420(6917):841-844, 19/26 December 2002. I looked at that abstract and no further--I honestly didn't check the other. Likewise, he didn't identify what the abstract said, and I must have glossed over it in the thread he directed me to.

However, mixtures of L and D amino acids in a single protein still work... mixed chiral peptides tend to make homochiral ones.

Click to expand...

Are there any known naturally occuring proteins of that type? As far as I've read, D amino acids are only used in the oligopeptides of bacterial cell walls and antibiotics. Also, I have heard that if a certain something is added to a polypeptide chain, it could switch them all, if I remember correctly. Do you have any references so the supposed pathways, etc.?

Moreland is a philosopher, and got his biochemistry wrong... The field is 1.5 T.

Click to expand...

It is Moreland, editor. The authors of the actual article are Bradley and Thaxton, of whom I'm sure you're aware and have a great commentary about

I apologize, you are correct (at least I think). Wasn't that the case where the results were withdrawn because one of the memebers of the team had tampered witht he experiments?

As far as proteins forming in water, how? And, according to a textbook I have, hydrolyzation is spontaneous and exergonic, Purves et al, Life: The Sciece of Biology, 2001 p. 99. And couldn't this take affect after Hydrothermal Vents got them together. And what are protocells?

LOL!! The reference is the abstract of the Joyce article you referenced!! Which tells me that you didn't really read the article, but instead read a creationist misquote from it... See? Sorry, Chase, busted!

Click to expand...

Exactly, but I couldn't find the quote, so how would I have known? And if you can find a creationist source that quotes that, I would certainly like to know. I found it quite on my own. And actually I'm not busted. If you can find one place in the creationist literature where it is quoted, I'd like to see it.

Rufus, I am actually 14 years old (as of sep 27), and did read the entire article, though much of it was above my head--thank you. I read about biochemistry when I can, and as much as I can. Lucuspa, it's great that you, with a Ph.D, can advise everyone to 'sit back' and enjoy while you argue against me. I'm trying to test different ideas (and you'll notice this post was mostly questions) and develop a view point through discussion. Your attitude was not especially impressive for a first impression.

I have a number of quotes from the scientific literature that I feel contradict some of your statements, and I have a couple of ideas I want to look up. I feel that if I engaged in any argument right now would be an ad hominem one, because I'm a little upset. Perhaps I am a moron for questioning different veiwpoint--and perhaps not. Nevertheless, I don't wish to be treated as one.

I feel that the scientific literautre takes a much more skeptical view of the problems I've mentioned than your view, but I don't have any time right now. Exams are next week, and I've got two presentations this week, so I don't have much time. See you later, and it was a pleasure.

-Chase

Chase,

To make things simple for you, I will ask you this one question for right now.

What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against evolution? You don't need to provide references to start with if you need them (aka I'm not familiar with the argument) I'll ask for them. Okay.

Hey SLPx,

Good to see you again. My position may be slightly modified from what mine was then, but I would enjoy picking it up. However, as I've stated time and again, I will not personally 'take on' a whole group. With my discussion with Quetzal, three people suddenly came in towards the end, and I just can't take the time to respond to a whole bunch of people. Quetzal wasn't the best for my mood, either. I prefer a friendly scientific discussion, not 'you're too young and stupid for this Chase, go BACK to high school science'--and that is how I felt I was being treated, so i backed out. Nevertheless, I will continue, most likely after exams. I would be willing to discuss with you and Quetzal. However, I'm really pressed for time right now. Perhaps you could make the opening post somewhere?

-Chaser

Rufus,

Truly, I consider chemical evolution the weakest point, perhaps because that's what I enjoy studying the most. I believe it is inconceivable that life could have arisen, for various reasons. I do believe there are a great number solutions possible, however. But even at that, when I read of solutions, papers throw out 5 completely different solutions at one time, hinting to me that it's completely speculative. For example, Joyce gives quite a number of solutions to the same problem in the paper I .. didn't... read...

I really don't know whether the author is unsure, or simply doesn't know which solution is best, or want to pile them up.

Anyway, REALLY should go now, haha, I look forward to posting here again. I thank you very much for always being kind to me, despite my ignorance at times.

-Chase

Chase,

You do realize that there is no such thing as "chemical" evolution, or at least things that people might want to call "chemical" evolution are not part of biological evolution. You've made the classic creationist mistake of conflating abiogenesis, the origin of life, with (biological/organismal) evolution, the origin of the diversity of life. For evolution to occur an imperfect replicator needs to exist. Therefore, whatever processes that lead up to the appearence of the first imperfect replicator cannot be evolution. Please look at my signature to see what evolution is.

Now let me get a little more specific with my question.

What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against common descent with modification via mutation, migration, selection, genetic drift, and reproduction? Or more specifically, what evidence do you find most compelling aginst man having a common ancestor with beasts?

Yup, evolutionist crowning acheivement.."where did it come from..Umm..I don't know"

Originally posted by Outspoken
Yup, evolutionist crowning acheivement.."where did it come from..Umm..I don't know"

Click to expand...

Outspoken, do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just trolling? If you want to be constructive, how about also answering my question?

But if that is the type of logic you prefer to use . . .

Yup, Christian crowing acheivement:
Q: "What did God say to Mohammad?"
A: "Umm...I don't know?"
R: "Since you don't know, Christianity is obviously false."

"A: "Umm...I don't know?""

Ruf, if you're going to do something get it right bro. the A: nothing

I'm commenting on the topic thanks, I think its funny how evolutionists don't want to start at the beginning but jump in half way.

Originally posted by Outspoken
I'm commenting on the topic thanks

Click to expand...

I'd appreciate your comments to be in context though. How about answering the same question I possed to Chase? He--a teenager-- is willing to have a dialog. Why are you, an adult, only willing to offer up quips?

I think its funny how evolutionists don't want to start at the beginning but jump in half way.

Click to expand...

We do start at the beginning, the beginning of evolution. Why do creationists, like yourself, keep insisting that evolution must account for things that don't involve evolution? It's like faulting physics because gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue. Or complaining that a course on contempory english literature doesn't cover Chaucer. If the only way you have to complain against evolution is to use strawmen, then I pity you. Argumentum ex ignoratia is a losing strategy.

"Why are you, an adult, only willing to offer up quips?"

*ahem* MESSAGEBOARD. I left a message.

"We do start at the beginning, the beginning of evolution. "

yeah, that's not the actual beginning though. I just find it funny that pretty much all evolutionists are unread on this topic...considering most people view it as a more "important" thing.

"Why do creationists, like yourself, keep insisting that evolution must account for things that don't involve evolution? "

LOL, ruff, you're putting words where they don't belong, please don't do so again

/me hands ruff back the words he unkindly shoved into his mouth

I know what evolution is thanks. Micro true, macro not so true

and the origins of life itself are somehow in there too?

outspoken, I love the fact that you've charged rufus with being unread on abiogenesis - i'd bet ten dollars he knows more about chemical evolution than you

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Why are you, an adult, only willing to offer up quips?"

*ahem* MESSAGEBOARD. I left a message.

Click to expand...

I guess the concept to staying within the context of a thread is foreign to you. It's sad that a kid nearly half your age can converse so much more maturely than you.

yeah, that's not the actual beginning though.

Click to expand...

It's the actual beginning of evolution. Where else would you have evolutionists start? It's like complaining that English teachers aren't interested in Proto-Germanic. English afterall isn't the beginning of our language. Just because "goddidit" can answer anything and everything and thus explain nothing, doesn't mean that your opponent must also be able to produce one answer that fits all.

I just find it funny that pretty much all evolutionists are unread on this topic...considering most people view it as a more "important" thing.

Click to expand...

If all you creationists were so well read on this "most important" thing, then why do y'all still keep making the same mistakes. Why, if it's the orgin of life that is important to you, do you complain about evolution? Argumentum ex ignoratia is like invading russia in winter.

LOL, ruff, you're putting words where they don't belong, please don't do so again

Click to expand...

So when you said that evolutionists must account for the origin of life, on a thread entitled "why evolution doesn't work," you never intended to say that evolution must account for thing that it doesn't cover? Right. . . .

I know what evolution is thanks. Micro true, macro not so true

Click to expand...

If you already know what evolution is, how about answering my question and starting a dialog? Why are you avoiding it?
Proloquim ex ignoratia is like bringing a rubber chicken to a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] fight.

"outspoken, I love the fact that you've charged rufus with being unread on abiogenesis "

If he is, which from his past stated creditals he should be, that is an exception IN MY EXPERIENCE.


"I guess the concept to staying within the context of a thread is foreign to you. It's sad that a kid nearly half your age can converse so much more maturely than you."

Per your usual manner you can't handle people not willing to sink to your level upon getting insulted. Sorry, I don't have, nor am I willing to commit the time to talk to you about something you accept regardless even if I did show you evidience to the contrary. I won't waist my time, nor yours, thus why I made a passing COMMENT. I thought you'd take that hint, I guess not.


"It's like complaining that English teachers aren't interested in Proto-Germanic."

No, its like a mechanic not caring about where he gets his parts..they are all the same..right..lol.


"you never intended to say that evolution must account for thing that it doesn't cover? Right. . . ."

/me again hands ruff back the words he unkindly shoved into his mouth

I ate today thanks.


"how about answering my question and starting a dialog?"

See above. I have no patience for it. I've done my research and found the theory lacking, for me that is enough, I guess you feel the need to prove it to others, well have fun undertaking your great commision.

why do people who don't know what they're talking about like to insist that evolution requires abiogenesis

evolution would be unnaffected whether god put the first cell there, or whether it came about due to natural processes - abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution

oh well rufus, at least outspoken has run out of "patience" (read evidence) to continue his futile line of argument

"oh well rufus, at least outspoken has run out of "patience" (read evidence) to continue his futile line of argument"

I find it kinda funny that you didn't read my post at all. I know that evolution has NOTHING to do with the start of life. If you'd paid any attention to any of the posts I typed, you'd see that. typical..oh well.