Why evolution doesn't work.

[ChaseNelson]

Rufus,

Thank you for your offer. The college in my town has a very good library, and I can find most of my literature there. I also have a subscription to Scientific American, and read the articles that interest me in Nature and the like at the college. However, we do not carry the Journal of Molecular Evolution--do you have access to that? Also, do you have access to Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere?

I am reading now my material on the RNA-World. Perhaps a new thread is in order.

Jerry, that article is the same from which I quoted.

I do have a large library, I suppose 'at my fingertips'--the college here in town. Indeed, I've copied over 100 articles that interest me and I have a huge stack here. However, no, I do not have any material dealing much with your question. I do have tons of stuff on CPL and magnetic field stuff, etc., but not much on that.

I will get back soon.

Chaser

 

[RufusAtticus]

Chase,

I have access to both journals, although OLEB is not electronic.


P.S. Here is a link to my libary, http://www.libs.uga.edu.

 

[Screamin-GOD-Till-I-Die]

Evolution has to many defaults just about everything they have to say theres like 2 wrong reasons or more! iv learned that on thsi board

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Screamin-GOD-Till-I-Die
Evolution has to many defaults just about everything they have to say theres like 2 wrong reasons or more! iv learned that on thsi board

There are indeed at least two wrong reasons to doubt any given thing - but very few *good* reasons to doubt most of it.

Even if we simply *granted* every single objection without complaint, the theory would still be substantially better as an explanation than anything else I've seen.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Screamin-GOD-Till-I-Die
Evolution has to many defaults just about everything they have to say theres like 2 wrong reasons or more! iv learned that on thsi board

Hmm, I wonder what you'd say after taking senior biology.

 

[Chris H]

Rufus, I've never seen a good comback against evolution and I've been following creation/evolution for twenty plus years.

You would have thought that if God wanted us to believe ina literal Genesis he would have given us...evidence...

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Actually, I'd like to take a little more biology myself.

Chris

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Hmm, I wonder what you'd say after taking senior biology.

I wonder how he'll say it after taking freshman english.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
I wonder how he'll say it after taking freshman english.

Heh, I thought about saying the same thing (though, replace "freshman" with "remedial"). I just didn't think I could get away with it.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rising Tree  [lucaspa] Same thing, and done. After all, using DNA to settle paternity suits is taking a random "Joe" -- a baby -- and seeing if that kid is your offspring. 

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?

Which means that you can show that your 15th cousin is not your offspring. And taking that amount of shared DNA can show how closely your 15th cousin is related to you. 

Also, remember that science <B>falsifies</B>. Theories are accepted as (provsionally) true because of the repeated attempts to falsify them have failed.&nbsp; You are claiming evolution is false. Therefore, you should be able to come up with scientific papers demonstrating this.

The first comment is true, and it's good to see that you can recognize this.&nbsp; This is what we're doing when we attack evolution on scientific grounds.&nbsp; The second part, I don't buy, for two reasons: (1) I'm not sure where to look, and (2) the scientific community is very hard-hearted to the theory of creation.

Let's be precise. What creationists are trying to do is falsify evolution.&nbsp; If any of the criticisms were actually valid, they would have succeeded.&nbsp; Just like scientists succeeded in falsifying creationism.

That you don't know where to look is immaterial.&nbsp; Look through PubMed and other databases.&nbsp; Go for it.&nbsp; The scientific community is "hard-hearted" to creationism because they falsified it by 1830.&nbsp; Once&nbsp;a theory is falsified it stays falsified.

Thanks for the definitions, but the mosquito scenario implies that they may be out of date.&nbsp; This is truly a fascinating situation whereby two races, and arguably two species, arise solely from the processes of microevolution.&nbsp; The situation in no way implies that mutation-laden macroevolution actually occurs.

Sure it does, because "macroevolution" is nothing but speciation.&nbsp; And I have several more references of the formation of new species.&nbsp; The definitions aren't out-of-date, but rather that creationists wish to move the goalposts because their theory gets falsified -- again.

Articles #1, #2, #3 look like harmful mutations to me.&nbsp; #4 and #5 don't even mention mutations.&nbsp; I have no clue what #6 and #7 are talking about.&nbsp; #8 looks like microevolution.&nbsp; etc.

From the abstract to the 1st paper "Surprisingly, substitution of the TIF5 gene mutated at these sites for the wild-type gene had no obvious effect on cell growth under normal growth conditions. "&nbsp; Doesn't sound so very harmful to me. Are you sure you are really reading the abstracts?

Sorry, but there is no "Principle of Disorder".&nbsp; This so-called principle was developed by misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the 2nd Law.

Incorrect.&nbsp; The principle of disorder is a fundamental rule of our lives.&nbsp; Anything left unattended falls apart.

Still incorrect.&nbsp; There is no "Principle of Disorder".&nbsp; An acorn left unattended in the ground sprouts and grows into a tree, gaining in complexity.&nbsp;Put a string in a saturated solution of copper sulphate and see the crystal form. Left alone, it grows, not falls apart.&nbsp; Or put single strands of DNA in solution and leave them alone. They will become double stranded DNA.&nbsp; Sorry, but the reason your "principle of disorder" doesn't exist is because it is falsified all the time.

Then you will be interested in examples of Darwinian (natural) selection making designs. There is a thread under that title on the board. Go back to page 5 or higher and look for it.&nbsp; Creationists never challenged the thread.&nbsp; I wonder why?

Perhaps they didn't have the time of day to deal with all the arguments, or the evolutionists weren't listening to them.

There weren't an posts.&nbsp; Look at the thread and see designs made by Darwinian selection. Or search the web under "genetic algorithms" and find many yourself.&nbsp; The next time you fly in a 767, the wings were designed by Darwinian selection.

That's a convenient story, but not backed by data.&nbsp; Document those times, please.

See the first post in this thread.

I did. You said "Piltdown Man".&nbsp; That's all, and that was a hoax perpetrated on scientists, not by scientists. Also, in order for this line of argument to be valid, there must be tens of thousands of such instances.&nbsp; So start posting them.

However, why don't creationists submit grants to NSF and NIH like everyone else?&nbsp; What is disturbing is not their lack of funding, but their lack of rejection slips.&nbsp; If you don't apply, how can you get money? And, if you don't apply, then you can't honestly use this argument, can you?

Are you kidding me?&nbsp; That is suicide for ones career in today's biased world.&nbsp;

First, it's not suicide.&nbsp; Only 10% of grant submissions are funded anyway, so no one can be judged if they fail to get a particular grant.

Second, what do Behe and&nbsp;Demski care? Their careers aren't based on academics anymore anyway.&nbsp; Behe has tenure at LeHigh, so what does he have to lose?&nbsp; And then there is Schafer, Denton, and Kenyon.&nbsp;&nbsp;All established scientists with tenure. Why don't they submit.&nbsp;

And now, the most quoteable comment in&nbsp;this entire thread:

Debating points don't count.&nbsp;

Need I say more?

Yes, because so far you haven't given us anything but 1) debating points and 2) data that you say isn't there but is.&nbsp; For instance, you haven't addressed the data I referenced on transitional fossils.

Not creationism, but creation.&nbsp; Remember, there is a difference.

Define terms, then.

Creation is a theological concept that deity created the universe, usually for a purpose. Creationism is a specific scientific theory on how the universe was created.

Do you have a species-by-species record of those evolutionary pathways, or are your sources just guessing?

The examples I gave were better than species-by-species.&nbsp; They are&nbsp;individual by individual transforming into species to species across higher taxa. No guessing.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rising Tree [Peter Harcroft] 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? [/I]

Everyone, Rising Tree represents several ways an individual can try to duck that his hypothesis was falsified.&nbsp; Remember, the claim for the "Principle of Disorder" said nothing could gain in complexity if left alone or, put the opposite way, that everything fell apart when left alone.

So, Peter falsifies that by finding that snowflakes increase in complexity if left alone. Rising Tree tries:
1.&nbsp;Trying to change the&nbsp;claim by introducing&nbsp; some scale of "complexity".&nbsp;
2.&nbsp; Introducing "spontaneous" as though it is different. But "spontaneous" is the same as "being left alone". That is, it happens on its own without intervention. Which counters his original claim.
3.&nbsp; Going beyond the event to a later event -- the melting of the snowflake.&nbsp; However, eventually hemoglobin is going to become disorder after we die.&nbsp; So that would be an argument against his creationism, also. However, again, the original claim didn't allow for an intermediate step of increased complexity, so Rising Tree is trying to avoid falsification by a new ad hoc hypothesis.

Yes, let's ignore those samples for which there is only one representative.&nbsp; Besides, I believe that is not what Lucaspa meant.&nbsp; Rather, it is possible to get this information from a single sample...

Really?&nbsp; In most fields of study, the usual minimum sample size is thirty.&nbsp; How come paleontology gets an exception?&nbsp;

First, you are wrong about the minimum size.&nbsp; It depends on the power of the analysis, and that depends on the amount of difference between the populations studied.&nbsp; Large enough difference, and one sample is enough. For instance, in deciding whether chimps and humans are the same species, how many samples do you need?

Second, the sample yields many, many subsamples which all count.&nbsp; Shape and size of teeth, shape and size of jaw, shape and size of ribs, femurs, calvaria, etc.&nbsp; IOW, each bone is not one sample, but a suite of samples.

I have a book that lists scores of these scenarios...if I could only find it....

There are over 100,000 scientific articles published, in all fields, each year.&nbsp; Of those, the estimate is that less than 1% are fraudulent.&nbsp; And they are all caught by other scientists.&nbsp; However, Rising Tree, for your scenario to seriously discredit evolution, you have to suppose a massive coverup by independent scientists whose personal motivation is to expose the fraud, not cover it up.

The missing chains that the evolutionists are looking for still do not exist.&nbsp;The existence of one link in no way implies that the chain&nbsp;requiring millions of links exists.&nbsp; It does not rule out the possibility that the link was thrown or somehow else placed there.

First, I posted chains, so the first sentence is simply refuted.

Second, consider hypotheses again.&nbsp; Creationism demands that all species be specially created.&nbsp; If one species transforms into another, creationism is dead.&nbsp; Now, evolution claims that all species transformed from earlier species.&nbsp; The chains provide supporting evidence. What Rising Tree is introducing is "science-of-the-gaps" and claiming that a theory can't be considered valid until all possibilities are checked.&nbsp; That is no longer falsification, but a completely new criteria.

Let's consider a non-evolution example: long bone development.&nbsp; Arnold Caplan's lab examined mouse fetuses and came up with a theory that bone formation in mammals proceeds by formation of a boney collar around the initial cartilage condensation.&nbsp; They checked it against human and rat fetuses.&nbsp; Therefore the theory is that all mammals form by this process. Now, do they have to check all mammals to consider the theory to be (provisionally) valid?&nbsp; According to you they do.&nbsp; What you are trying to do is change science. The theory is strongly supported, but it is not necessary to check elephants, aardvarks, and kangaroos before we do this.&nbsp; We have enough examples for that.

And the same applies for transitional series of fossils. There are more than enough to support evolution.


The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life.

Change of terms here. Debating tactics.&nbsp; Abiogenesis is not biological evolution.&nbsp; Biological evolution assumes the existence of life.&nbsp; Just like gravity assumes the existence of mass.&nbsp; Every theory has limits.

Second, abiogenesis is not based on time plus chance, but rather on chemistry.

Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution.&nbsp; I have personally spoken to three such people;

ID has published a list of 100 scientists who question evolution.&nbsp; Now, how many scientists are there in the US right now?&nbsp; 100,000?&nbsp; A million? Let's take the lower figure.&nbsp; 100 is 0.001%.&nbsp; Now, take any idea, no matter how crackpot, and you will find 0.001% of the people who believe it.

Were those 3 scientists biologists?

Evolution preaches time-plus-chance;

Before you can intelligently critique evolution, you must first understand it. Evolution is not about "chance". I posted this from Dawkins but I guess you&nbsp;just&nbsp;chose to ignore it.&nbsp; Ignoring data -- another debating tactic.

&nbsp;creation preaches Intelligent Design.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp;

Again, misrepresenting evolution.&nbsp; Selection is not random.&nbsp; It is the opposite of random; it is pure determinism.&nbsp; In fact, Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design. Follow the steps and design is guaranteed (why you have genetic algorithms).

In fact, I submit that even intelligences use Darwinian selection. That Darwinian selection is the only way to get design.&nbsp; That intelligences run Darwinian selection in their minds and only make the final design into an artifact.&nbsp;

So, evolution says biological organisms are designed.&nbsp; The "designer" is Darwinian selection, not a deity.&nbsp; It was the really poor and cruel&nbsp;designs in nature that caused Christian theologians to abandon special creation in the first place. Evolution got Christianity off a really bad theological hook.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Let's be precise. What creationists are trying to do is falsify evolution.&nbsp; If any of the criticisms were actually valid, they would have succeeded.&nbsp; Just like scientists succeeded in falsifying creationism.&nbsp;

You say "let's be percise" then you get it exactly upside down and backwards. Creationists had no problem at all to falsify evolution. It was sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. When they tried to say that man "evolved" from the monkey or a common ancestor to the Ape, then evolutionism pretty much shot themselves in the foot and did themselves in. It did not take a lot of effort on our part.

There is little or nothing valid about the evolutionary theory, so it stands little to no chance of success. It is doomed to failure. When sh*t hits the fan, it is not evolution people are going to be looking to for help, they are going to crying out to their creator.

Of course you have to offer people a choice. If they want to reject God, then you have to give them something to believe in. I would just think you could come up with something getter than the theory of evolution, which really is no theory at all. They just say it happened all by itself. There is no logic or reason to that at all. But if your going to try to say God did not do it, then I guess when people ask how it all came into being, you can not say: I don't know. You have to say it did it all by itself.

Creationist: God did it.

Evolutionist: It did it all by itself.

Creationist: God created the Universe and all that is in it.

Evolutionist: It evolved into what is it is, all by itself. It just happened.

Kinda like your parents when you are growing up. I don't want to. Well, that is just the way life is and your just going to have to accept that life is that way and there is not a lot you can do about it so just adjust and make the best out of it. Learn to live with it, if you like it or not.

It don't work, never has, never well. It is actually disfunctional. So I gave up "evolution" for something&nbsp;EXCEEDINGLY better.

 

[blasteddead]

Or

Evolutionist: God didit through evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson All,

I've rarely posted on this forum before, but my friend Rising Tree told me that he'd started a thread that I may be interested in. I'm very interested in biochemistry, and I believe it poses a few problems to the origin of life scenario.

Oh good! My Ph.D is in&nbsp;Biochemistry so I get to lecture in my specialty!&nbsp;Yeah! Sit back, everyone, the lecture is going to be long.

Firstly, there is the issue of chirality.

Not an issue. It is true that most amino acids in modern proteins is the L form and that most sugars are the D form.&nbsp; However, mixtures of L and D amino acids in a single protein still work.&nbsp; What's more, there are several routes by which you can go from a racemic environment (both L and D) to a homochiral one.&nbsp; First, replicating mixed chiral peptides tend to make homochiral ones.&nbsp; Second, homochiral proteins are slightly more stable than heterochiral ones.&nbsp; I've got all the papers if you want to go into this in detail.&nbsp;


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].

Moreland is a philosopher, and got his biochemistry wrong.&nbsp; Most proteins have only one active site if they are an enzyme.&nbsp; They also usually have a couple of phosphorylation sites and binding sites that may be critical for the particular function in that particular species or cell.

However, each protein has thousands of possible backbones that will get the job done.&nbsp; How do we know? Simple. Compare proteins from different species.&nbsp; Remember, the amino acid sequence (backbone) from each species is usually unique. That means for, say cytochrome c, that there are millions of species with most of them having amino acid sequences different from the others. Yet they all work!!&nbsp;

Now, since its shape is so important, no D-amino acids can be present, or its function will be destroyed.

Your discussion of charge and hydrophobicity of amino acids was quite good. But what you miss is that D amino acids have the same R groups as the L, so they have the same charge or hydrophobicity as the L amino acids.&nbsp; All that has changed is the order of the groups around the central carbon H00C-C*HR-NH2 with the C* being the optically active carbon. The best way to do this is with an apple or orange. Take the orange as the optically active carbon then take different colored toothpicks to represent the H, R, COOH, and NH2 groups. Put these tootpicks equidistant in the&nbsp;surface of the orange. It'll look like a tetrahedron.&nbsp; Now, hold a mirror up to the orange and put the toothpicks into&nbsp;how they appear in the mirror. Then try to superimpose the two oranges.&nbsp; They won't.&nbsp; That is the only difference between L&nbsp;and D.&nbsp;&nbsp;Therefore putting L and D amino acids into the same protein doesn't&nbsp;have a major effect on its function.&nbsp; That's why several modern proteins have both forms in them.

For example, it is said that circularly polarized UV light will destroy one handedness quicker than the other. However, both forms are destroyed, and by the time the mixture is 100% one-handed, there is a very small amount of amino acids left at all. This idea, set forth by Rikken and Raupach [2000], also makes a number of asusmptions: for example, in their model, incoming light must be parallel with magnetic flux lines--something I don't presume is very likely to happen!

It will happen in interstellar space on dust that has amino acids.&nbsp;

Additionally, the magnetic field they used was 15 T.&nbsp;

That's not the data in the paper.&nbsp; The field is 1.5 T.&nbsp; Your source misplaced a decimal.&nbsp;

Once this problem is overcome, there's the problem of getting the amino acids to polymerize (come together) and stay that way. Dr. Michael J. Behe, a biochemist (author of Darwin's Black Box), stated the following:

Behe is mistaken.&nbsp; Data always triumphs, even the&nbsp;claims of a fellow biochemist.&nbsp; &nbsp;Proteins will form in water.&nbsp;
&nbsp; Snyder WD and Fox, SW.&nbsp; A model for the origin of stable protocells in a primitive alkaline ocean.&nbsp; BioSystems 7: 222-229, 1975.
&nbsp;&nbsp; Rohlfing, DL.&nbsp; Thermal polyamino acids: synthesis at less than 100°C.&nbsp; Science 193: 68-70, 1976.
&nbsp;&nbsp; Syren RM, Sanjur A, Fox SW&nbsp; Proteinoid microspheres more stable in hot than in cold water.&nbsp; Biosystems 1985;17(4):275-80&nbsp; (protocells at hydrothermal vents)
&nbsp;&nbsp; Yanagawa, H. and K. Kobayashi. 1992. An experimental approach to chemical evolution in submarine hydrothermal. systems. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22: 147-159.

Higher temperatures accelerate this breakdown of polypeptides.

Once proteins spontaneously form protocells (which they do in water), they are remarkably stable. Again, Behe has ignored data.

This is a very sketchy overview of the problems encountered in origin-of-life research.

Please go back to page 5 or 6 of the posts and look for a thread "Protocells: life from non-life".&nbsp;

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 mine]."

I'll get the full text of the paper tommorrow at work, and then we'll see. I suspect an out-of-context quote. If that is the case, then you are not doing "scientific questions" but are quote mining to misrepresent science for a position you have already decided upon.&nbsp; Anyone want to place bets?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson Rufus and Jerry,

Jerry, I cannot find lucaspa's quote on that thread, perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough. Could you provide the reference?

LOL!! The reference is the abstract of the Joyce article you referenced!!&nbsp; Which tells me that you didn't really read the article, but instead read a creationist misquote from it.

Nature 2002 Jul 11;418(6894):214-21
The antiquity of RNA-based evolution.

Joyce GF.

Department of Chemistry and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. gjoyce@scripps.edu

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.

See?&nbsp; Sorry, Chase, busted!

"My question, and maybe you can help answer it, is this: is it possibly a mechanism in the process of catalysis used by the first self-replicators that is responsible for the selection of L-chiral amino acids in organics of biological origin?"

Nature 2001 Feb 15;409(6822):797-801&nbsp;

Comment in:
Nature. 2001 Feb 15;409(6822):777-8.&nbsp;&nbsp;
A chiroselective peptide replicator.

Saghatelian A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR.

Department of Chemistry, and Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA.

The origin of homochirality in living systems is often attributed to the generation of enantiomeric differences in a pool of chiral prebiotic molecules, but none of the possible physiochemical processes considered can produce the significant imbalance required if homochiral biopolymers are to result from simple coupling of suitable precursor molecules. This implies a central role either for additional processes that can selectively amplify an initially minute enantiomeric difference in the starting material, or for a nonenzymatic process by which biopolymers undergo chiroselective molecular replication. Given that molecular self-replication and the capacity for selection are necessary conditions for the emergence of life, chiroselective replication of biopolymers seems a particularly attractive process for explaining homochirality in nature. Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle. The chiroselective amplification process discriminates between structures possessing even single stereochemical mutations within otherwise homochiral sequences. Moreover, the system exhibits a dynamic stereochemical 'editing' function; in contrast to the previously observed error correction, it makes use of heterochiral sequences that arise through uncatalysed background reactions to catalyse the production of the homochiral product. These results support the idea that self-replicating polypeptides could have played a key role in the origin of homochirality on Earth&nbsp;

And

FASEB J 1998 Apr;12(6):503-507&nbsp;
RNA-directed amino acid homochirality.

Martyn Bailey J

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The George Washington
University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC 20037, USA.

The phenomenon of L-amino acid homochirality was analyzed on the basis that
protein synthesis evolved in an environment in which ribose nucleic acids
preceded proteins, so that selection of L-amino acids may have arisen as a
consequence of the properties of the RNA molecule. Aminoacylation of RNA is the
primary mechanism for selection of amino acids for protein synthesis, and
models of this reaction with both D- and L-amino acids have been constructed.
It was confirmed, as observed by others, that the aminoacylation of RNA by
amino acids in free solution is not predictably stereoselective. However, when
the RNA molecule is constrained on a surface (mimicking prebiotic surface
monolayers), it becomes automatically selective for the L-enantiomers.
Conversely, L-ribose RNA would have been selective for the D-isomers. Only the
2' aminoacylation of surface-bound RNA would have been stereoselective. This
finding may explain the origin of the redundant 2' aminoacylation still
undergone by a majority of today's amino acids before conversion to the 3'
species required for protein synthesis. It is concluded that L-amino acid
homochirality was predetermined by the prior evolution of D-ribose RNA and
probably was chirally directed by the orientation of early RNA molecules in
surface monolayers.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by JohnR7
You say "let's be percise" then you get it exactly upside down and backwards. Creationists had no problem at all to falsify evolution. It was sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. When they tried to say that man "evolved" from the monkey or a common ancestor to the Ape, then evolutionism pretty much shot themselves in the foot and did themselves in. It did not take a lot of effort on our part.

LOL. Then please, JohnR7 share all this evidence that easily disproves the evolution of man. Rising Tree has gone through this entire thread and been unable to do this. Rhetoric will not work. You'll need evidence to overturn the foundation of modern biology.

There is little or nothing valid about the evolutionary theory, so it stands little to no chance of success. It is doomed to failure.

proloquium ex ignoratia

When sh*t hits the fan, it is not evolution people are going to be looking to for help, they are going to crying out to their creator.

deus ex ignoratia

Of course you have to offer people a choice. If they want to reject God, then you have to give them something to believe in. I would just think you could come up with something getter than the theory of evolution, which really is no theory at all. They just say it happened all by itself. There is no logic or reason to that at all. But if your going to try to say God did not do it, then I guess when people ask how it all came into being, you can not say: I don't know. You have to say it did it all by itself.

So all those christians who accept the accuracy of evolution are just trying to reject God. Tell that to the Pope. Heck tell that to the leaders of your own denomination.

Creationist: God did it.

Evolutionist: It did it all by itself.

Ahh yes, the age old debate on the causes of lightening. Well I guess if you want to think that God causes lightening and static electricity doesn't exist, go right ahead, but I still suggest that you install a lightening rod on your steple . . . just in case.

Creationist: God created the Universe and all that is in it.

Evolutionist: It evolved into what is it is, all by itself. It just happened.

What does the origin of the universe have to do with evolution?

It don't work, never has, never well. It is actually disfunctional. So I gave up "evolution" for something&nbsp;EXCEEDINGLY better.

If evolution doesn't work, how come the entire biotech industry uses it to make new drugs? How come computer science has borrowed almost the entire amagamation of evolutionary genetics to develop computer programs? How come the United Methodist Church, via their "Social Principals," supports it and finds no theological conflict with it? How come you can't find a single modern population biologist that believes in special creation? How come?

Rhetoric might make you feel good, but it won't disprove science.

 

[RufusAtticus]

lucaspa,

Chase probably read it. It is just that he is 15 (16?) and doesn't have enough back ground to fully understand such paper yet. Thus he can easily and accidentially take things out of context. He definately seems interested in the scientific literature, unlike most creationists, especially 15 year old ones.

 

[lucaspa]

[lucaspa] Let's be precise. What creationists are trying to do is falsify evolution.&nbsp; If any of the criticisms were actually valid, they would have succeeded.&nbsp; Just like scientists succeeded in falsifying creationism.&nbsp;

Originally posted by JohnR7 You say "let's be percise" then you get it exactly upside down and backwards. Creationists had no problem at all to falsify evolution.

John, creationism was the accepted scientific theory prior to 1830.&nbsp; In 1831 Rev. Adam Sedgwick, retiring President of the Royal Geological Society, announced his version of creationism was false.

When they tried to say that man "evolved" from the monkey or a common ancestor to the Ape, then evolutionism pretty much shot themselves in the foot and did themselves in. It did not take a lot of effort on our part.

Talk about the ultimate in wishful thinking! John, one of the best transitional series of individual fossils we have is in the hominid line, showing that humans evolved back through 4 species so far to A. afarensis, so different that it is in a different genus.

There is little or nothing valid about the evolutionary theory, so it stands little to no chance of success. It is doomed to failure. When sh*t hits the fan, it is not evolution people are going to be looking to for help, they are going to crying out to their creator.

You seem to have shifted gears again here, John.&nbsp; Now you are talking as though evolution is atheism.&nbsp; Once again, EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM.&nbsp; Once again, this isn't about whether there is a "creator", but how the creator created.

&nbsp;If they want to reject God, then you have to give them something to believe in.

No you don't. There were atheists long before there was a theory of evolution.

&nbsp;I would just think you could come up with something getter than the theory of evolution, which really is no theory at all. They just say it happened all by itself.

Why do you keep misstating the theory even after your error has been pointed out to you again and again?&nbsp; Evolution didn't "just" happen.&nbsp; Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design.&nbsp; Biological organisms were designed by Darwinian selection and are not artifacts specially manufactured by a deity.&nbsp;

There is no logic or reason to that at all.

OK,&nbsp;John.&nbsp; Here is Darwin's logic. Show us where it is flawed:
"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized.&nbsp; This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

C'mon. Show us where the logic is flawed.&nbsp; No other posts until you do this.

Creationist: God did it.

Evolutionist: It did it all by itself.

Creationist: God created the Universe and all that is in it.

Evolutionist: It evolved into what is it is, all by itself. It just happened.

Wrong labels.&nbsp; Change "evolutionist" to "atheist" and you are closer, but still not right.&nbsp; Evolution is not atheism, and until you get past that, you will continue to be a major danger to Christianity.&nbsp; Because you insist that accepting evolution means accepting atheism, then you give no one a choice but to become an atheist!&nbsp; I personally think you are an atheist working undercover.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
lucaspa,

Chase probably read it. It is just that he is 15 (16?) and doesn't have enough back ground to fully understand such paper yet. Thus he can easily and accidentially take things out of context. He definately seems interested in the scientific literature, unlike most creationists, especially 15 year old ones.

I could buy this except Chase couldn't identify the abstract from the paper that he allegedly read.

However, I hope you are correct, because if he does read the scientific literature, then there is a possibility that he will accept the data.&nbsp; So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and look up the paper tommorrow and check the quote.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
LOL. Then please, JohnR7 share all this evidence that easily disproves the evolution of man.

You have your Bible. What you want me to read it to you?

If evolution doesn't work, how come the entire biotech industry uses it to make new drugs?

Oh sorcery &amp; witchcraft. Now&nbsp;there is a good argument for evolution. The devil&nbsp;did it.

&nbsp;

How come computer science has borrowed almost the entire amagamation of evolutionary genetics to develop computer programs? How come the United Methodist Church, via their "Social Principals," supports it and finds no theological conflict with it? How come you can't find a single modern population biologist that believes in special creation? How come?

Rhetoric might make you feel good, but it won't disprove science.

You should listen to what your saying. Rhetoric may make you feel good, but it does not disprove God.

I have no idea what computer program your talking about. As far as the Methodists, they accept everyone and everything, they do not want to offend anyone. As far as you single modernist biologiest, who you claim do not believe in God. Maybe that is why they are still single. The women are looking for God fearing men.