It snowed yesterday where I live. If "anything left unattended falls apart", then how did those snowflakes form?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by Rising Tree
Incorrect. The principle of disorder is a fundamental rule of our lives. Anything left unattended falls apart.
Originally posted by Rising Tree
Working with a sample size of one is not good science.
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.
(emphasis added)... the part about the part-way transitional fossils, and the point is worth repeating. What this article is attempting to do is a mistake that paleontologists commonly make. They assume if that two species are very similar, one must have evolved from the other. Similarity in no way establishes a chain of evolution unless the fossil record visibly shows this chain.
I trust science, not politics. Evolution is politics.
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.
I'm really growing tired of seeing this. Just because the scientific community accepts a theory does not automatically make it true.
Very well, it looks like we have to redefine the word "macroevolution."
Yet I still see zero evidence from the mosquito scenario that life as we know it, which would have required the evolution of new genes, evolved.
That's an assumption that they occur as often as they do. Again I cite the Principle of Disorder (NOT NOT NOT the 2nd Law).
That's right, you have faith that the experts are correct. Need I get started on the number of times in history that the experts were dead wrong?
Working with a sample size of one is not good science.
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.
Similarity in no way establishes a chain of evolution unless the fossil record visibly shows this chain.
Beliefs such as (1) missing links will be found
(2) the Principle of Disorder can be overcome, etc.?
I trust science, not politics. Evolution is politics.
BTW, I would be most surprised if any high-level scientific journal in America mentioned a pro-creation story, simply because of the overwhelming bias against creationism in the scientific community.
Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.
Originally posted by Rising Tree
It snowed yesterday where I live. If "anything left unattended falls apart", then how did those snowflakes form?
(1) Snowflakes are nowhere nearly as complicated as say, hemoglobin or DNA.
(2) Isn't the snowflake formation process spontaneous under the right conditions?
(3) Won't the flakes eventually melt?
Say what? The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life. Besides, it's safe to say that you've missed a lot of what I said earlier. Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution. I have personally spoken to three such people; all three of them ultimately disowned evolution on scientific, not theological grounds. Although it may be fun to do so, this subject doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand. Evolution preaches time-plus-chance; creation preaches Intelligent Design. Which makes more sense for ANY system of complexity that we know of--it randomly came into being, or somebody poured a lot of time and effort into getting it right? You decide which paradigm makes more sense. But as for me, I'm going with the intelligent design theory.
Originally posted by Rising Tree
(1) Snowflakes are nowhere nearly as complicated as say, hemoglobin or DNA.
(2) Isn't the snowflake formation process spontaneous under the right conditions?
(3) Won't the flakes eventually melt?
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 Rising Tree
In most fields of study, the usual minimum sample size is thirty. How come paleontology gets an exception? And don't counter with the fact that there aren't that many fossils on record; many times, studies don't have a lot of data to work with, but the n>=30 rule still has to hold.
Right, and you know what? The missing chains that the evolutionists are looking for still do not exist.
The existence of one link in no way implies that the chain requiring millions of links exists. It does not rule out the possibility that the link was thrown or somehow else placed there.
Say what? The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life.
Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution. I have personally spoken to three such people; all three of them ultimately disowned evolution on scientific, not theological grounds.
Although it may be fun to do so, this subject doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand.
Evolution preaches time-plus-chance;
creation preaches Intelligent Design. Which makes more sense for ANY system of complexity that we know of--it randomly came into being, or somebody poured a lot of time and effort into getting it right?
You decide which paradigm makes more sense. But as for me, I'm going with the intelligent design theory.
Originally posted by Rising Tree
Yes, let's ignore those samples for which there is only one representative. Besides, I believe that is not what Lucaspa meant. Rather, it is possible to get this information from a single sample...
Really? In most fields of study, the usual minimum sample size is thirty. How come paleontology gets an exception? And don't counter with the fact that there aren't that many fossils on record; many times, studies don't have a lot of data to work with, but the n>=30 rule still has to hold.
Irrelevant. Or do you want to get into an argument of the relative integrity of one side versus the other. If so, I suggest we begin by looking at Kent Hovind...
I have a book that lists scores of these scenarios...if I could only find it....
Did it ever occur to you that someone might have thought of this previously?
Right, and you know what? The missing chains that the evolutionists are looking for still do not exist. The existence of one link in no way implies that the chain requiring millions of links exists. It does not rule out the possibility that the link was thrown or somehow else placed there.
Not really. The debate is politics, but evolution itself is based in science. In fact, in the world of science there is virtually no disagreement that evolution is the best theory available at this time. If you have something better, we'd be glad to discuss it.
Say what? The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life.
Besides, it's safe to say that you've missed a lot of what I said earlier. Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution.
Besides, it's safe to say that you've missed a lot of what I said earlier. Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution.
The major problem in hooking amino acids together is that, chemically, it involves the removal of a molecule of water for each amino acid joined to the growing protein chain. Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins. Because water is so abundant on the earth, and because amino acids dissolve readily in water, origin-of-life researchers have been forced to propose unusual scenarios to get around the water problem [Behe 1996, pp. 169-170].
Firstly, there is the issue of chirality. Amino acids come in L- and D-forms (left and right handed, respectively) which occur "in nature with roughly equal frequency [Dembski and Kushiner, eds., 2001, p. 109]." This poses a considerable difficulty, because "Only L-amino acids are commonly found in most organisms [Purves et al. 2001, p. 32]" except in a few cases, such as the "oligopeptides of cell walls [Huber and Wachtershauser 1998]." It is significant to note that "the amino acid products of (abiotic) laboratory syntheses are usually a 50:50 mixture of D and L (a racemic mixture) [Bernstein et al. 2002]."
Proteins have a very specific structure that is dependent upon its backbone--the amino acid sequence. About half of the sites along the chain are called active sites, and are quite critical--there are fatal consequences if something is changed [Moreland, ed., 1994, p. 179]. This is because of the protein's primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure--primary being the backbone. Once a protein is assembled, it folds into a very specific shape (one biology textbook shows that, for a protein made of 100 amino acids using the 20 found in living proteins, 20^100 different proteins are possible [Purves et al. 2001, p. 38]). This shape is determined by such factors as delta-charges (very weak charges in polar molecules), R-groups that are hydrophobic (they don't like water, so they all get together to squeeze it out), R-groups of different charge, etc. The protein's specific structure is dependent upon the amino acid sequence. A protein's function is completely dependent on its shape (since it binds to other things with an exactly complementary shape to its own).
Now, since its shape is so important, no D-amino acids can be present, or its function will be destroyed. However, as quoted above, experiments produce a racemic mixture of amino acids--that is, a mixture with an equal amount of each handedness.
The many roadblocks have driven some scientists to conclude that something other than proteins started life out: for example, the 'RNA World Hypothesis', which hold that RNA was the first thing to 'emerge'. This doesn't seem very promising to me either. Gerald F. Joyce [Joyce 2002, p. 215], an authority on this subject, said that "If the building blocks of RNA were available in the prebiotic environment, if these combined to form polynucleotides, and if some of the polynucleotides began to self-replicate, then the RNA world may have emerged as the first form of life on Earth. But based on current knowledge of prebiotic chemistry, this is unlikely to have been the case [emphasis on "if's" added by Chase Nelson have been removed due to formatting of quote]."
All life that is known to exist on Earth today and all life for which there is evidence in the geological record seems to be of the same form one based on DNA genomes and protein enzymes. Yet there are strong reasons to conclude that DNA- and protein-based life was preceded by a simpler life form based primarily on RNA. This earlier era is referred to as the 'RNA world', during which the genetic information resided in the sequence of RNA molecules and the phenotype derived from the catalytic properties of RNA.
Outlook
The reign of the RNA world on Earth probably began no more than about 4.2 billion years ago and ended no less than about 3.6 billion years ago. It may have occupied only a small portion of that interval, with the pre-RNA world having come before. Insight into the origin and operation of the RNA world is largely inferential, based on the known chemical and biochemical properties of RNA. In the best of circumstances those inferences are supported by examining the role of RNA in contemporary biology. Without that support one must be careful not to draw detailed conclusions regarding these historical events. Future studies will sharpen the picture of ancestral RNAbased life through combined efforts in prebiotic chemistry, in vitro evolution, biochemical analysis and molecular phylogenetics. It should be possible to formulate more precise boundary conditions regarding the environmental conditions of the early Earth and the types of chemical reactions that would have occurred under those conditions. Additional catalytic RNAs are likely to be found in biology and undoubtedly many more will be discovered through test-tube evolution. The construction of artificial RNA-based life from synthetic oligonucleotides is a distinct possibility, and there even is a chance that a remnant of the RNA world will be found lurking in some special contemporary microenvironment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?