Again - prove it
As Cred would say where is your OSE?
|
Again - prove it
As Cred would say where is your OSE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I was going to make the same argument, so happy to see MichaelB has saved me the trouble. Nice.
De Maria's argument that pebbles are not ordered but DNA is is exactly wrong. The DNA is not ordered. The difference is that it's self reproducing and because many other different non-ordered arrangements of DNA have not survived, we are left with the many (many) that have happened to survive.
It's as if 100 pebbles fell to the beach in a random pattern, and then the tide came in and out and washed away all the pebbles below the high tide mark, leaving dozens of pebbles above a sharp line of demarcation. We would come back and see a line of pebbles, so neat. That's how selection works too. But it doesn't mean God made the line of pebbles -- or a particular sequence of DNA.
But in order for the first fuctional reproducing cell to come about that exact DNA sequence has to come about in the first place.
Then how did mrna, ribosomes, amino acids coordinate with these "pebbles."
Are you waiting for a chimp to come up with Shakespeare? :D
Here is more scientific things to ask yourself
Do 68 Molecules Hold The Key To Understanding Disease?
Not only do you have to get nucleic acids, but lipids and glycans as well as proteins.
Are you waiting for a tornado to build a house? :D
Enough chimps and enough typewriters, why not? Especially when the works that don't fit get taken out with the tide so to speak.Quote:
Are you waiting for a chimp to come up with Shakespeare?
Excellent parable!!Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
:)
Wow? You saw a picture of Jesus made by the wood grain? That is pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Now, do you consider it a miracle? Or do you think this type of picture will be regularly duplicated by unthinking, inanimate wood grain throughout the world?
Just because you say so?Quote:
Complex random chemical reaction follow the same law of order as the pebbles and it's these complex chemical reactions that created life.
But again, that is speaking against the evidence. The pebbles did not create complex patterns. You attributed the pattern to the existing pebbles. Otherwise you would be able to see the same pattern reproduced over and over. But you won't.
Only humans can assign patterns and copy patterns in this world.
Sincerely,
De Maria
It isn't? Well, lets go back to our wiki:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses.
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do you get instructions without order?
Just like that? Its self reproducing? Is it magic? Or how does an inanimate unintelligent matter decide to "self reproduce"?Quote:
The difference is that it's self reproducing
Ooooh! By accident. Have you calculated the possibility that something like that could happen by accident?Quote:
and because many other different non-ordered arrangements of DNA have not survived, we are left with the many (many) that have happened to survive.
It is absolutely zero.
Why sure it does. God gave the laws of physics that affect what happens to the pebbles in the wave motion.Quote:
It's as if 100 pebbles fell to the beach in a random pattern, and then the tide came in and out and washed away all the pebbles below the high tide mark, leaving dozens of pebbles above a sharp line of demarcation. We would come back and see a line of pebbles, so neat. That's how selection works too. But it doesn't mean God made the line of pebbles -- or a particular sequence of DNA.
But again, you are comparing apples to oranges. When you find an instructional message such as the ones issued by the dna, on the beach, made by the eons and eons of wave action on the sand, then you'll have proof that the actions of inanimate unintelligent matter can produce intelligent instructions.
Lol!! WAIT!! Oh, sorry, I jumped the gun. Then you'll need to provide evidence that unintelligent inanimate matter can respond to that so called intelligent message. :)
Sincerely,
De Maria
De maria perhaps you should study complex chemical reactions in the presence of a catalyst and get back to us.
The other thing that needs to be considered is that the laboratory of the universe is huge. Life the right conditions for life only had to appear once for us to be having this conversation. No matter what the odds against if it is possible it happens in the laboratory of the universe because of the number of chances you have for it to occur. Think about it 125 billion of galaxies each with about 100 billion of stars over 13 billion years. So
125,000,000,000
x100,000,000,000
125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
x13,000,000,000
1,625,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
For give my math if I missed some zeros or added some but you get the idea.
That's assuming there is only one chance a year that life would form. I realize that this isn't a perfect number but it's to give you a scale of just how many monkeys on typewriters we are talking about. The point is that life didn't have to be here. It could have a risen anywhere in the universe and we could still be having this conversation. I know what your going to to say that if life is accident of nature it has no meaning. I disagree with the conclusion but I know your line of thinking. The meaning of life though is not a question that can or should be answered in a science class that is where religion or philosophy belong.
Asking that was a picture of what scientist have called a "Human tail". I got the picture off Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information which is promitent science website that publishes new biological and scientific discovery. Check it outQuote:
Originally Posted by asking
Those pieces of flesh that darwinists claim are remnence of a tail can grow anywhere.
Spinal Cord - Figure 1 for article: The /`human tail/' causing tethered cervical cord
So that argument is invalid.
I don't really want to split hairs on the terms but to me Macroevolution has nothing to do with science or biology so I am not going to use evolutionism synomously with biology. A better term is "Darwinists". So there are biologists like yourself who believe in Darwinism. Darwinists is just a term I use for all believers in Dawanism aka Theory of Evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
:)
[QUOTE]Again these are your beliefs which are consistent with Dawinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Again all this whole argument is not based on facts. For one thing you can not even prove that the earth/universe has been around for billions of years. So your whole arguments is already flawed because it is based upon one unproven assuption over another. What I like to call a "hot air" argument. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Sassy,
The only people who don't agree that the universe has been around for billions of years are people who actively deny knowledge those people are beyond my help.
I can only lead you to the water, I can't force you to drink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
your largest figure is what 10 to the 33 power x [4 x 10 to 9th ], 4 billion years, x [ 10 to the 3rd power - say 1000 day years to keep the math easy ]
=
10 to the 50th power at largest.
compare that to 10 to the 3000th power
and you will realize the mathematical impossibility of chance. :eek:
Quote:
Many Debunking Articles On The Theory Of Evolution by Ecclesia.org + Article "The Theory of Evolution" | Love for Life
18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:
(a) Start with a meaningful phrase.
(b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters.
(c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.
(d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
(e) If it is not, return to step (b).
To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring.To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.
Do a little thought experiment. Take 25 packs of cards. Make each pack different, maybe a different theme or design or whatever, so that each card is unique. Now shuffle them all together. Yes this would be tiring but not altogether impossible. Keep shuffling until you're satisfied that it is as random as possible. Throw cards around and mix them all up good. Make it so that you have had no intelligent input into the order of the cards. Shuffle them without looking at the fronts of the cards, if that helps you.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Now, deal each card out one by one in a long row. What do you think the chances of dealing those cards in that exact order are?
It's somewhere near 1 in 10 to the 3500th power and you just did it first time! Bravo!
What's your explanation of this, if it could not have happened by chance?
work backwards. Because no one knows what really happened.
first:
write down a sequence of 25 x 52 = 1300 cards
second : have a second person, with no knowledge of the sequence you wrote down, :) play 1300 card pick up and see how long it takes to come up with the same sequence you wrote down. They have a 1 in 10 to the 3500th power chance of getting it exactly correct.
Remember the human genome has about 3 billion base pairs.
Thanks for reinforcing the mathematical impossibility of humanity existing due to chance :D ;)
I agree a human cell randomly forming might be mathematically impossible but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the mathematical possibility that the simplest form of a self replicating chemical compound can form. Which may have only originally worked in the presence of a catalyst. That's a completely different than what your talking about.
The other thing you need to remember is that more than one version of order of cards might work as well. Which dramatically lowers your odds. 1 in a 1,000,000 chance suddenly becomes 2 in a 1,000,000 or 1 in 500,000.
The point is none of us know what the odds are that this would happen we can only speculate. It might be that life springs up everywhere there is a liquid median or it could be so rare that life only a rises once every 100 billion year in the entire universe. We just haven't explored enough.
But the universe wasn't working backwards. It wasn't working with an end in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Another way to phrase what you're saying: If you took a (big) bag of 1,000,000 different marbles and picked one out at random, the probability of the marble that you picked is so small that it's statistically impossible. So you're saying that when you pick a marble out, the probability is that you won't have picked a marble out?
If this isn't what you're saying, then please try to explain?
So there is purpose in the universe? What end does the universe have in mind? :confused:Quote:
But the universe wasn't working backwards. It wasn't working with an end in mind.
Since the mathematical odds are 10^3000, we diverge onto philosophizing? :confused:
Remember, a genetic code cannot stand alone, it needs to be in a cell, and there are dozens of other components required in trascription and translation of a genetic code, so take that 10 ^ 3000 and add another couple of orders to it. :eek:
You can have 10 ^ 9 years and 10 ^ 9 galaxies and 10 ^ 9 solar systems and it is still only 10 ^ 27 !
As to the marble or the decks of cards - those are simple. ;)
Do you see a automobile and think - there are billions of years and bilions of days and billions of other planets and think that that automobile came to be simply by chance or some universal end? No, any one knows that an automobile was designed by intelligence.
:rolleyes:
And what exactly was the catalyst? Another unproven hypothesis. ;)Quote:
Which may have only originally worked in the presence of a catalyst
Why does it have to have a purpose why can't it just be. The universe as far as we know is an object with no mind at all. So it has no end in mind because it has no mind it just does what it does without purpose. What happens happens. When a stone falls it doesn't fall with purpose but it does fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You stated this as the chance a human cell would develop spontainiously, no one has said a human cell was the first cell. What we are talking about is much much simpler more like a nanobe. What are the chances that most of the water molicules in the ocean formed with exactly 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen? When taken alone with out knowing the chemistry involved you could make up some pretty astonomical odds.Quote:
Since the mathematical odds are 10^3000, we diverge onto philosophizing? :confused:
Do you have proof of that what about nucleotides, polynucleotides or RNA?Quote:
Remember, a genetic code cannot stand alone, it needs to be in a cell
Probably montmorillonite, I agree however that this is a hypothesis. However montmorillonite has shown the ability to form complex chemical chains such as RNA. If it is at all possible that life could have formed out of a natural cause doesn't that rule out the supernatural. Just like we don't think that lighting is thrown by Zeus anymore because we have a natural probable solution.Quote:
And what exactly was the catalyst? Another unproven hypothesis. ;)
quoting Cap on purpose in the universe.
As to the genetic code: nucleotides make up the "N" in Deoy["R"]iboNuleic "A"cid .
Bio 101 - read about DNA transcription [ copied ] and translation [ into polypeptides ].
This takes place in a cell.
Viruses [ dna or rna ] need to take over another's cell machinery to reproduce itself - they cannot do it themselves.
Smallest Genome of Living Creature Discovered | LiveScience
160,000 base pairs - compare that to the odds for Capuchin's 1300 cards - [ "1 in 10 to the 3500th power"] - try that for 160,000 - still mathematically impossible to come by random purposeless chance :rolleyes: ;) :eek:
Your missing the point life is chemistry just because the first replicating molecules aren't life doesn't mean they aren't the beginning of life.
You complain that we discount the supernatural but you are discounting the natural solution before we even have a working theory. Wouldn't it make sense to at least be open to the idea that there is a natural solution to this problem since so far every solution that we have found an answer to has had a natural solution.
Inthebox, I said there wasn't an end that the universe had in mind, please re-read.
Neither is there any purpose for the universe to exist. It exists. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
;)
That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)
And no one can address the mathematical impossibility of us even existing. :confused: :eek:
Evolution explains why we want and search for purpose. Beings that feel they exist for a reason and that living is important are more likely to survive. Just because you want there to be a purpose for something doesn't make it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
We did you just didn't listen or didn't understand. I don't know which.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Look at it another way though the odds don't matter. Even if the odds are 10^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999. You can still get the correct answer the first time but if you really want to play the odds game I trump your odds with infinite parallel universes and with the universes ability to randomly generate particles I can say it is completely possible that we all popped into existence last Tuesday with memories intact and the odds can not prove me wrong because I have an infinite number of rolls.
However if you want to come back to something closer to reality, your basic premise is wrong because you want an entire cell to pop into existence. It probably didn't happen that way. More than likely it started with simple chemical compounds that with the absence of life that utilises these compounds were able to get more complex until it became life.
Hello in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Religious people search for "purpose". They're caught up in their own self importance, I guess. The rest of us know our "purpose", from an evolutionary perspective, is to do nothing other than procreate.
excon
Yep.. That's a consequence of our intelligence, of our evolutionary past, and I personally wouldn't trade it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
But we're here - so the mathematical impossibility is obviously mathematically possible. (and yes, we have addressed it several times - I personally have given you at least 2 or 3 examples of how impossible things happen, and how your logic of saying something is statistically impossible is false - but you seem to ignore them or refuse to understand them)Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
We even make a hobby out of it!!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
:D :D :D :D :D :D
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
How does evolution explain a search or desire for purpose?
Are we the only species that feel or act this way?
Do insects have a "purpose" or intelligence - they have been around much longer and their biomass is much greater than ours?
Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!
As to the origins of life - there is no scientific explanation.
And to get a more complex organism from "simple chemical compounds" - explain that.
Link me to a scientific experiment that they can take "simple chemicals" and, without using intelligence or a design, show me a sponge or yeast or amoeba developing?
As to odds...
It is easy for the powerball winner say I got the one in 10 to the 8th [ only ]
But for all the others that have tried for years and have never won, it is impossible.
It is circular to say we are the proof of zero odds - unless you rely on the divine.
Science and the demand for evidence says - reproduce the results.
Try winning the lottery 10 times in a row :D:eek::rolleyes:;):p
Hello in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I don't know who you been talking to, but there IS purpose in my life - absolute and clear cut PURPOSE.
That purpose is to procreate.
If you want to attach meaning to it, go ahead. THAT'S what religions try to do. Personally, I don't think my existence MEANS anything.
excon
If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?
They have no "evolutionary" purpose?
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Oh, the purpose is still the same. You're even emphasising it, actually. The idea behind the "purpose", is survival of the fittest. If homosexuals aren't fit, they'll go extinct. If abortionists aren't fit, they too, will go extinct.
Of all the species, WE are the only ones endowed with choice. Some of us choose to deny our purpose. Others of us just go on screwing and loving every minute of it.
excon
Evolution explains it by saying at one point in our history the desire for purpose was useful perhaps by saying I have a purpose I need to live.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I don't think so, almost all species have the desire to live.Quote:
Are we the only species that feel or act this way?
They don't have our intellect but they fill their particular spot in the eco system very well in way they are more successful than we are as far as evolution is concerned.Quote:
Do insects have a "purpose" or intelligence - they have been around much longer and their biomass is much greater than ours?
Meaning and purpose are merely points of view. I might think the life of one gnat is meaningless purposeless. However if you are the gnat, you might beg to differ. Let philosophy worry about meaning, let science worry about science.Quote:
Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!
There is no definitife scientific explanation. We have tons of explanations for it; we just haven't narrowed it down to which one actually happened. It's symantics but there is a difference.Quote:
As to the origins of life - there is no scientific explanation.
Sure. DNA can be broken down into RNA. RNA can be broken down into polynucleotides. Polynucleotides break down into nucleotides. Nucleotides break down in to nitrogenous base, a sugar, and a phosphate group.Quote:
And to get a more complex organism from "simple chemical compounds" - explain that.
Again just because we don't know something doesn't mean god did it. It also took millions of years for life to develop on earth. Meaning we don't have the time to or the laboratory the size of a planet to put simple compounds in and let them stew.Quote:
Link me to a scientific experiment that they can take "simple chemicals" and, without using intelligence or a design, show me a sponge or yeast or amoeba developing?
So circular logic is okay as long as your using it got it.Quote:
As to odds...
It is easy for the powerball winner say I got the one in 10 to the 8th [ only ]
But for all the others that have tried for years and have never won, it is impossible.
It is circular to say we are the proof of zero odds - unless you rely on the divine.
Science and the demand for evidence says - reproduce the results.
Try winning the lottery 10 times in a row :D:eek::rolleyes:;):p
I don't agree with your premise though. Since we have no proof of god doing it. We have to infer that there is a natural solution, just as every problem has had since the dawn of mankind. Every answer we have ever found not one has been god did it. So given that I can say the fact that we are here is proof the odds are not impossible, unlikely sure but not impossible.
Also science is the demand for evidence, but we can look at a crater and say a metor hit the earth without reproducing the results. We don't do thinks like say the only way we could make this crater is with nuclear weapons so this crater must have been formed by aliens with nuclear weapons.
You have a narrow understanding of evolutionary purpose. Drones in a bee hive don't reproduce yet they allow the queen to reproduce more. Which gives them evolutionary purpose. You have to understand that for much of our evolutionary history we lived in small groups, things that have no purpose now might have been useful then.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Abortions,
Could have purpose because they would allow the person to raise better children later or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.
Homosexuals,
Could have purpose because often the second brother is the homosexual if the second brother being gay allows the first brother to produce more ofspring maybe because he isn't fighting his brother for mating rights or the brother helps to raise those children to adulthood so they can reproduce more he might be of assistance or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.
infertile or post menopausal females that have not procreated
Could have purpose because perhaps it requires more adults than two to raise a human child. If infertile people take some of the stain off parents raising children it might be beneficial to have a portion of you species infertile or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.
One biological "purpose" of an abortion is to allow the parent to invest more resources in preexisting children or to save resources for future children, to reproduce when times are better. Animals do exactly this kind of thing all the time. They don't have as many offspring as they possibly can. Instead, they have as many offspring as they can successfully raise to maturity. If times are harsh, they put off reproduction until a better time. They even engage in infanticide at times. I'm not promoting that. I'm just saying that there IS a biological imperative to limit reproduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
This is more obvious in parents that invest a lot into the offspring. In animals where the fathers don't do anything but donate sperm, they tend to try to maximize the number of offspring and also their size. (Fathers that help raise the offspring are less likely to do this.) This results in the father giving genes to the offspring that make the baby take lots of calories from the mother and get very large, and the mother, in turn, passing on genes that minimize these effects, so she can has the resources to raise other offspring and live long enough to raise the one she's carrying, instead of dying...
All of this is well documented in the field of "parental investment."
Parental investment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I like to go back to the original topic question :
One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :
Recently... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA."... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?
My comments :
It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.
All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.
But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !
ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....
Any (more) comments?
:rolleyes:
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
D in DNA is deoxy - ribonucleic acid. R in RNA is ribonucleic acid.
Explain how DNA with a 2 H bonds at the 2nd carbon gets "broken down" into RNA with 1 H bond and 1 OH [ hydoxyl] bond at the 2nd carbon?
You went from complex to simple. Take sugars, phosphates and nucleic acids - mix in a test tube and see if you can come up with a functioning genetic code = at least 160,000 base pairs - good luck :)
There is evidence of multiple meteor impacts on the earth - that is reproducible observable events. The same cannot be said for the origin of life, or evolution.
So the only evolutionary imperiative is to survive, yet humans, being no different than animals except in their ability to kill, uses abortion to survive? Or because it not convenient to have a child?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Evidence is to the contrary among humans:
Western Europe is also very secular.Quote:
White Europeans: An endangered species?
Europeans are not becoming less fertile as a consequence of war, or famine, or disease, but rather as a consequence of their Western, consumerist lifestyles. Some, such as social critic Mark Steyn, have suggested that European civilization is in the middle of committing voluntary demographic suicide, and it’s not hard to see why: A civilization that is producing a tiny succeeding generation and shows no signs of attempting to remedy the problem is violating fundamental Darwinist principles of gene propagation
The irony is that the highest birth rates and population growth is among the poorest nations or among Muslim nations.
List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 AM. |