Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Tao_Equus]

Greetings Juantoo

I very much enjoyed the links you provided here. I read most and printed quite a bit of related material to go through, hopefully soon. I knew of some work being done with parrots and porpoises, but hadn't looked deeply into it yet. I spent more effort looking into Koko the Gorilla and Dr. Penny Patterson. Frankly, in that instance (over three "conversational" transcripts) I saw no evidence of "future" thinking. This you presented with the parrot gives me pause, I am impressed. Not quite sure I see "future" thinking, but I do see a great deal of analysis, the kind of learning not generally associated at this high of a level with animals. It will be interseting to see where this parrot is in five, ten and twenty years. What I predict, to my chagrine, is that he will soon peter out and level off. So far, there seems to be a boundary that animals do not cross. Right about the level of a four or five year old human. This parrot is pushing four, both in age and intellect.

Very impressive. Thanks for sharing it.

Just wanted to provide you with a further link on intelligence in birds. This one primarily deals with crows. I would agree there does appear to be a cut off point in animals equivilant to about an average 4yr old human. I noted in both my own children that about that age there is a change in them, and its about that age the human brain at last stops growing and is fully formed. For my eldest son this change was striking especialy in terms of memory. At age four he would describe with much detail memories of the house we lived in for only the first 6 months of his life. Infact his recal was perfect for everything that happened to him up till about that age. A year later 95% of it was forgotten. Quite a strange phenomenon. Perhaps once we know more about intelligence in the animal kingdom we will begin to be able to make correlations that are qualifiable. The Human animal is undoubtedly diffierent and in evolutionary terms this change was very recent so its a logical step to say that what makes us conciously human starts when our brains are fully grown. Though I offer no evidence to support it other than my knowledge of brain development in humans and a hunch.

Anyway heres the link I promised; http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/

peace

Edit afterthought; It was about age 5 that my eldest son first talked in terms of religeons. I had always taken him in to a nearby cathedral as an infant and explained to him in simplistic terms what it was for. But at 5 he said to me 'I am glad people believe in Jesus'. When I asked why his reply was 'It means I get nice Christmas presents'

 

[n4h1z]

Peace to all..

I vote for creation. In my belief, every living creatures is a product of a grand design by a Master Creator.Each creature is unique in its own design.Science itself yields evidence and demonstrate that all living things are created.However the theory of evolution denies the truth of creation.

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".

The first person to seriously take up the issue of evolution which originated in ancient sumeria and shaped in ancient Greece was a French biologist, Jean Baptiste Lamark. In his view, girrafes originated in antelope-like animals which extended its neck to reach the leaves from higher branches. His theory was defended by an English naturalist, Charles Darwin. In His book The origin of species, he claimes that all living things descended from one common ancestor through coincidences. According to Darwin, forinstance, whales evolved from bears that tried to hunt in the sea.

Evolutionist says that the first organism was a cell that emerged from inanimate matter by chance. This evolutionary claim,however, is contrary to one of the most fundamental rules of biology: Life comes only from life, which means that inanimate matter cannot generate life.Life cannot come out from something lifeless.This shows that the first life ever comes from life Itself, which is God.Only God could give life out of lifelessness.This matter is also discussed in the Quran: "It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living." (Surah Rome: 19)

As we know, the basic structure of life is protein, which is build up of many types of amino acids, which comprises of carbon,nitrogen,hydrogen,ferum,Oxygen and inorganic elements.The theory of evolution states that the first protein appear by chance in a primordial soup.Probability of amino acids to form a protein by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 950. According to mathematics principal,probability smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 is almost impossible.

The cell itself is a concrete evidence of creationism. A sell is sufficient even by itself, for it can generate food,move and communicate with other cells,it has data bank,etc.In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a muddy lump.It is very certain that a structure this complex couldn't be the work of "chance".

The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Please go to--> http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=47508#post47508

 

[Bandit]

Peace to all..

I vote for creation. In my belief, every living creatures is a product of a grand design by a Master Creator.Each creature is unique in its own design.Science itself yields evidence and demonstrate that all living things are created.However the theory of evolution denies the truth of creation.

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".


The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Please go to--> http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=47508#post47508

nice post n4h1z
i am seeing it the same way.

 

[Quahom1]

Peace to all..

I vote for creation. In my belief, every living creatures is a product of a grand design by a Master Creator.Each creature is unique in its own design.Science itself yields evidence and demonstrate that all living things are created.However the theory of evolution denies the truth of creation.

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".

The first person to seriously take up the issue of evolution which originated in ancient sumeria and shaped in ancient Greece was a French biologist, Jean Baptiste Lamark. In his view, girrafes originated in antelope-like animals which extended its neck to reach the leaves from higher branches. His theory was defended by an English naturalist, Charles Darwin. In His book The origin of species, he claimes that all living things descended from one common ancestor through coincidences. According to Darwin, forinstance, whales evolved from bears that tried to hunt in the sea.

Evolutionist says that the first organism was a cell that emerged from inanimate matter by chance. This evolutionary claim,however, is contrary to one of the most fundamental rules of biology: Life comes only from life, which means that inanimate matter cannot generate life.Life cannot come out from something lifeless.This shows that the first life ever comes from life Itself, which is God.Only God could give life out of lifelessness.This matter is also discussed in the Quran: "It is He Who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living." (Surah Rome: 19)

As we know, the basic structure of life is protein, which is build up of many types of amino acids, which comprises of carbon,nitrogen,hydrogen,ferum,Oxygen and inorganic elements.The theory of evolution states that the first protein appear by chance in a primordial soup.Probability of amino acids to form a protein by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 950. According to mathematics principal,probability smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 is almost impossible.

The cell itself is a concrete evidence of creationism. A sell is sufficient even by itself, for it can generate food,move and communicate with other cells,it has data bank,etc.In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a muddy lump.It is very certain that a structure this complex couldn't be the work of "chance".

The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Please go to--> http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=47508#post47508

However the theory of relativity (physics), has been proven as correct (as far as we have researched it), and we know that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed...only changed from one form to the other, or to an inbetween state (plasma). We also know that matter is a lower state of energy, or lower frequency (vibration). This said, isn't "life" energy, supported by matter? Or is life something that resides within energy? In otherwords does life use energy as a carrier for its essence to remain, while energy uses matter to conduct itself through?

Also, can't evolution compliment Creatinism, instead of opposing it?

Just asking for thoughts on it.

v/r

Q

 

[presser_kun]

can't evolution compliment Creatinism, instead of opposing it?

Just asking for thoughts on it.

My thought is that it can.

God can, perhaps, did, create via a process like evolution.

Let's be honest. What we call evolution is a human label for what we observe. Let's not confuse the label with Truth.

What I mean is this: There is no East, West, North, South. Those, too, are just human labels. Markers, or symbols we construct to help us make sense of what we see in the world.

Evolution is, at best, I think, a process, imperfectly understood. It's the best our brightest can devise. Given the facts as we know them, it seems that things evolved.

Why can't God have given impetus to that evolution?

I think he can. Did, for my part.

black and white
when there is
so much grey

where's the sense
in that

we should
i think
understand that
the creator
can work in shadows
and
probably does
more than we want to
believe

god
man
humans
(sorry, ladies)
we are all of one
thing, one substance

i have no problem
believing that god
he
she
created
using
evolutionary processes

after all
if god made anything
then he made it all
including
the process we call
evolution

There, in poor blank verse, is my take on the idea.

peace,

presser_kun

 

[Tao_Equus]

.



The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".

There is nothing uncontrolled or purposeless about evolutionary thought on life. Indeed there are a number of factors or conditions that have to be met in order for life to exist and they believed that life started out simple but is now extremely complex.

According to Darwin, forinstance, whales evolved from bears that tried to hunt in the sea.

Most, if not all, bears are omniverous and and if they find themselves in a coastal habitat they will most certainly be found foraging in the sea. By degrees over several million years its not hard to imagine a bear becoming a whale.

Evolutionist says that the first organism was a cell that emerged from inanimate matter by chance. This evolutionary claim,however, is contrary to one of the most fundamental rules of biology: Life comes only from life, which means that inanimate matter cannot generate life.Life cannot come out from something lifeless.

What is this 'fundamental rule of biology' you speak of? You use a religeous belief not a scientific one. Life to a biologist is generated from things such as sunlight, water, chemicals and minerals....all of which are inanimate.

As we know, the basic structure of life is protein, which is build up of many types of amino acids, which comprises of carbon,nitrogen,hydrogen,ferum,Oxygen and inorganic elements.The theory of evolution states that the first protein appear by chance in a primordial soup.Probability of amino acids to form a protein by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 950. According to mathematics principal,probability smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 is almost impossible.

Amino acids arrive on earth in meteorites. They appear to be abundant throughout our solar system. Earth over 4 billion years ago was subject to meteorite bombardment far far greater than today so there was an abundant supply of long chain chemicals.
Your use of mathematical red herrings like that is a common fiction propogated by the creationist lobby and is calculated using non scientificly credible assumptions. Even a bathtub full of primordial sea water undergoing random chemical reactions has better odds than you state. As the old saying goes "theres lies, damned lies and statistics"

It is very certain that a structure this complex couldn't be the work of "chance".

It was'nt the result of chance it was a matter of adaptation and natural selection.

The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Another commonly used analogy of the creationist lobby with a sensationalist but fundamentaly flawed logic.


Another commonly used sensationalism of the creationists is their list of 400 scientists that say evolution theory does not explain life. But there is a simalair list of 500 scientists all with the first name Steven that believe the opposite.

The arguments you cite, each and every one of them, do a far greater job of convincing me creationism is a fallusy (sic) of religeous dogmatics than convince me there is some intelligent design in life. A theory I do not discount. The only people going to be swayed by such arguments are those who are already converted and do not see logic as a useful tool in explaing the world around us.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao_Equus!

It was about age 5 that my eldest son first talked in terms of religeons. I had always taken him in to a nearby cathedral as an infant and explained to him in simplistic terms what it was for. But at 5 he said to me 'I am glad people believe in Jesus'. When I asked why his reply was 'It means I get nice Christmas presents'

Thank you for the link, I hope to print it out to add to the others. I did read it through, and I am impressed. Now I regret I missed that particular episode.

About your son, that is interesting. Have you ever remembered that you used to remember? I know I remembered things when I was little that are but a vague blur now with only occasional flashes to remind me. Some of these are cherished memories, and I fear that one day even the flash of reminder will be gone.

It is cute, but from a child's vantage understandable, that his association with Jesus is with presents. Of course, if he really knew any better, he'd rather be Jewish. They get nice Hannukah presents, for 7 days! LOL

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, nahiz, and welcome to CR!

I vote for creation. In my belief, every living creatures is a product of a grand design by a Master Creator.Each creature is unique in its own design.

Yes, every creature is unique. For those of us that understand that life is a creation, evolution does not refute that. Indeed, for those that advocate evolution in any genuinely sincere manner, acknowledge that the ToE does not refute the possibility of God creating that process.

We don't know. ToE is our best guess so far as to how the process unfolds and works. So the genuine question to the layman is whether or not God exists. Since the ToE does not address the question of God, an evolutionist cannot logically or truthfully state that God does not exist. Those that do, do a great deal of disservice to science.

Science cannot prove or disprove God. Neither can philosophy. And if we are truthful to ourselves, neither can religion. Religion points in the direction of God, and provides us with a path to seek upon to discover for ourselves. Then we judge the matter for ourselves, using the personal experiences we have in our lives. Science does not address matters of spirit. It cannot. The scientific method cannot explain things it cannot hold or dissect. Religion reaches out in an effort to try to explain those things we cannot hold in our hands. Religion tries to teach us about things like spirit, love, laughter and hope.

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".

We must be careful not to paint people with a broad brush. This is quite an unfair assumption. There are people who fit this example, but they are few. How many more, like so very many on this site, believe in both God and evolution? How do you view them? As misguided believers? Is it not possible, just possible, that you might be the one misguided in this?

The first person to seriously take up the issue of evolution which originated in ancient sumeria and shaped in ancient Greece was a French biologist, Jean Baptiste Lamark.

I'm afraid you have lost me here...are you saying that Mr. Lamark, a French biologist, began the theory of evolution in Sumeria? Sumeria? Circa what, about 2500-3000 BC? The theory of evolution goes back that far? My goodness!

Evolutionist says that the first organism was a cell that emerged from inanimate matter by chance.

If I understand correctly, and I am open to correction, this is Abiogenesis. This is actually unrelated to evolution, although I can understand the confusion.

The cell itself is a concrete evidence of creationism.

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if it truly were "concrete" evidence of creationism, then creationism would have already "won the battle."

You see, this is religious warfare from both sides. Both sides feel threatened, both sides are determined to take ground from the other, neither is above playing artful and deceptive tactics to get their way. And their way is to influence the hearts and minds of as many as possible. At least, that is what the fundamentalists on both sides believe.

The truth of the matter is, that the people who think in these ways are battling mostly with themselves, too insecure in reality and too caught up in dogma to even listen to what the other might have to say. It is pitiful really, because both sides have some really neat things to share!

A sell is sufficient even by itself, for it can generate food,move and communicate with other cells,it has data bank,etc.

Isn't this really a neat thing? It was thinking like this that led the famous evolutionist Dr. Stephen J. Gould to say that single celled creatures are the most enduring form of life on this planet. Long after humans are gone, after mammals are gone, after reptiles and birds and fish are gone, even after cockroaches are gone, there will still be these microscopic single celled creatures living in places we think life cannot possibly exist. Because they are capable of modifying and adapting to these places. Some do not need sunlight. Some do not need water. Some do not need oxygen. Some do not need heat. Some do not need cold. They are everywhere on this planet, and they do adapt.

Some we call viruses. Some we call bacteria. Some of these can change, which is how a monkey virus, SIDS, can jump to humans and become AIDS. Which is why influenza is such a great concern, and why so many people are watching this new "bird flu" so closely, hoping and praying it doesn't adapt into a form that readily transmits to humans!

In other words, single celled creatures are actually pretty concrete evidence of adaptation, a fundamental cornerstone of evolution. This from a God fearing person, me.

The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Nah, I don't buy it. Tornadoes don't work that way. Junkyards usually don't have airplane parts...I mean, there is just too muchj illogic in this statement to even consider it as meaning anything. And certainly not meaning anything worthwhile to guage a way for humans to explain God's creation. Unless of course, you somehow feel your faith is threatened?

I assure you, I am no threat to your beliefs. And I will not allow you to threaten mine. So...there you have it.

Peace.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Q!

However the theory of relativity (physics), has been proven as correct (as far as we have researched it), and we know that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed...only changed from one form to the other, or to an inbetween state (plasma). We also know that matter is a lower state of energy, or lower frequency (vibration). This said, isn't "life" energy, supported by matter? Or is life something that resides within energy? In otherwords does life use energy as a carrier for its essence to remain, while energy uses matter to conduct itself through?

Also, can't evolution compliment Creatinism, instead of opposing it?

What an interesting obsevation! Of course, that would help tie into Abiogenesis. If life (spirit) truly is associated with energy, and energy is bound in matter, then having life grow out of inanimate matter is really no surprise!

However, how does one then explain death, as when life leaves the shell of matter? (Perhaps my timing is wrong for this question, in which case ignore it and accept my apologies...)

This does open an interesting course to study!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Presser_Kun!

God can, perhaps, did, create via a process like evolution.

I am finding more and more people who feel this way, when they sit down and think about it and ignore the dogmatic battles being waged around them.

Let's be honest. What we call evolution is a human label for what we observe. Let's not confuse the label with Truth.

Indeed. Labels have a nasty habit of being modified over time. And as we are reminded from time to time by some, the way that can be spoken is not the true way. Something like evolution may well exist, but I am not convinced it exists in the manner and form it is traditionally presented. Whether or not that implies Intelligent Design or not is out of the range of my understanding. It also does not negate that possibility. It also does not negate possibilities we collectively have yet to dream of.

What I mean is this: There is no East, West, North, South. Those, too, are just human labels. Markers, or symbols we construct to help us make sense of what we see in the world.

Evolution is, at best, I think, a process, imperfectly understood. It's the best our brightest can devise. Given the facts as we know them, it seems that things evolved.

Right about labels. Right about (implied) humans being imperfect. Right about doing the best we can with what we "seem to" know.

Why can't God have given impetus to that evolution?

I think he can. Did, for my part.

That is certainly a possibility. Going by what we believe we understand at this point in time, I would guess it is the most likely possibility.

BTW, I liked the poem!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao_Equus!

There is nothing uncontrolled or purposeless about evolutionary thought on life.

I think there is a misconception, maybe a problem with semantics, regarding this between evolutionists and creationists. Seems once upon a time, evolution was viewed as some kind of conveyor belt, that "lower" forms naturally developed into "higher" forms. Teleology, as I recently learned the word. Of course, this implied direction from an outside source, which creationists pounced upon. (It also lead directly to such nasty philosophies as eugenics)

Now of course, the teleologic conveyor belt is no longer considered the method of operation. Now evolution teaches that all animals are equally evolved. On the surface it seems an acquiesence to PC. It also seems a subtle attempt to throw off the possiblity of "outside interference" from a creator. So, it really does create some confusion among those who really do wish to look at both sides, in that on the one hand evolution suggests there is a purpose, and on the other hand there is no purpose. It does get confusing.

Indeed there are a number of factors or conditions that have to be met in order for life to exist and they believed that life started out simple but is now extremely complex.

I want to agree with you, and I do for the most part, but I do have a few reservations. For life to start there must have been some "correct" conditions, OK. But since single celled life can exist is a wide variety of environments, some totally devoid of any other life forms, it gets a little tricky in trying to distinguish just what those "correct" conditions really are. Which single celled creatures are most suitable to become double celled creatures, and under what conditions? When and where does sexual reproduction enter the picture? Where does predation enter the picture?

It does get a bit complicated.

Life to a biologist is generated from things such as sunlight, water, chemicals and minerals....all of which are inanimate.

True that science does not acknowledge spirit, but I am having just a bit of trouble understanding here. "Life...generated" is confined primarily to abiogenesis, is it not? Whereas, to the typical biologist, life is a given, and spirit is overlooked. I believe I have heard it presented that life requires "sun, water, chemicals and minerals (and oxygen)," but this would be for carbon based life forms "higher" than microscopic life. There are quite a number of single celled creatures that do not require one or another of these "requirements."

Your use of mathematical red herrings like that is a common fiction propogated by the creationist lobby and is calculated using non scientificly credible assumptions. Even a bathtub full of primordial sea water undergoing random chemical reactions has better odds than you state.

Truth is, we don't know, and likely never will. Nobody was there to record the event. What we have are guesses, some better than others. It is when a guess is held out as unquestionable truth that both sides overstep their respective bounds.

Hate to say it (or maybe I really don't! ), but that kinda makes this abiogenesis argument that follows into evolutionism a red herring argument too.

As the old saying goes "theres lies, damned lies and statistics"

I like this! I hope both sides will appreciate it when I use it!

The arguments you cite, each and every one of them, do a far greater job of convincing me creationism is a fallusy (sic) of religeous dogmatics than convince me there is some intelligent design in life. A theory I do not discount. The only people going to be swayed by such arguments are those who are already converted and do not see logic as a useful tool in explaing the world around us.

Gotta agree here. Reminds of the guy I heard trying to convince me that guns should be outlawed in Florida "because Florida is shaped like a gun!" The shocking thing to me is, he was being quite sincere. I find that to be very frightening.

Of course, it is also known that academics can get lost in their ideologies and lose sight of the world around them. And they become in their own way just as fundamental and dogmatic. This concept is lost on them and others around them because they surround themselves with the illusion of knowledge and learning. Oxymoronic as it may sound, education does not eliminate the possibility of ignorance and fundamentalism, at least not alone. Fundamentalism is taught, it is a learned response. Whether religious or secular, educated or not. Fundamentalist ignorance is the result of myopic "vision" and closed mindedness, not how many college and university degrees one happens to *not* hold.

 

[juantoo3]

My original intention with this thread was to sit back and observe, since I have already participated a great deal on other threads dealing with this subject. I still encourage everyone to go through those threads at your leisure and contribute if you feel the need.

My schedule requires my attention right now, and the time I have spent here recently was not figured in, so I am really quite far behind now. I must put my attention elsewhere for a while. I "lurk" from other places, and I will probably still pop in from time to time (this place is like a bad habit). Given the need, I will be around. I just do not have the time to participate as deeply as I would like.

By all means, please continue the discussion. Please do not feel I am ignoring you if I do not respond. My attention is required elsewhere. Kindest Regards!

 

[wil]

I think my favorite evolution/creation discussion is the one that God put the fossil record out there so that we would be able to test our faith!

namaste,

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you Juan for your responses to my posts, I have found all of them entertaining, informed and fair minded. Though I think your raising of the subject of abiogenesis and then saying your bowing out for a while is akin to the kid giving the hornets nest a good poke with a stick and then legging it

 

[juantoo3]

 

[E99]

Tao Equus

Your quote:

There is nothing uncontrolled or purposeless about evolutionary thought on life. Indeed there are a number of factors or conditions that have to be met in order for life to exist and they believed that life started out simple but is now extremely complex.


You say evolutions 'thought' on life as if it preconceives what it needs to design, to come next, like an intelligent being would perceive. If it is to have purpose then it is a force of intelligence that understands by reasoning the future requirements. There is no intelligent force involved....Evolution is purposeless. Yes, Juantoo3...Once upon a time evolution was once thought to be teleology (explaining present structure in terms of its future purpose) but Darwinists have foregone this concept, but they keep going back to it. They change like the peppered moth.... white to black and back to white again, adapting to the changing colours of life.


No purpose is needed, just a blind process of random change that is selected for survival by the environment. But evolutionists today still use the concept of design and purpose to explain what they see in biology. How confused they are.


Life was complex from the very start.... You have to realise how complex the first living cell is and the means involved for it to go through a highly complex process to attain self replication to understand why the evolutionists skirt this issue with their fabrications to attempt to over simplify this animating process.


To form a self-reproducing cell from non-living chemicals requires the generation of a large amount of information, or specified complexity. A cell must be able to perform many chemical reactions in the right order, place and degree, which requires a number of specific catalysts (enzymes). It must also be able to reproduce the information needed to produce these enzymes.


It was an obvious creation, production of the earliest prokaryotic cells....abiogenesis. No other fossilised form of life has been found that precedes this extremely complex 'first life' form.


Tao Equus quote:

Most, if not all, bears are omniverous and and if they find themselves in a coastal habitat they will most certainly be found foraging in the sea. By degrees over several million years its not hard to imagine a bear becoming a whale.


Stick to imagining it only. Its pure speculation.

Its very hard to imagine any water bound mammal ever evolving into the whale, especially as one of them seems to be evolving into a duck, or is it vice versa ? It has the chromosomes of a bird, lays eggs and has been swimming a lot longer than Yogi. Actually its devolving, fossilised platypus teeth have been found (In South America, not Australia). Mixing Winnie the pooh, Moby Dick and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde makes for more fantasy.


Imagine, the duck billed platypus had become extinct before man and paleontologists were to uncover a fossil that looked like a mammal, yet also had bird and reptilian features. The evolutionists would declare that they've found the ultimate transitional ! They'd go quackers, as the duck billed platypus fits their bill, but we know that it doesn't fit the bill because its here, alive and well, and confounds the evolutionist, even if some try to hammer it into the evolutionary tree.


To be exact, the animal said to have evolved into the whale was the Andrewsarchus, which was a fiercesome wolf-like creature, with a large head and sharp teeth.


Whats involved in a land mammal, the Andrewsarchus becoming a sea dwelling mammal, the Whale.........


.......This mammal had to lose its hair and backbone flexibility. Its nostrils would have to move from the end of its snout to the top of its head, (before drowning) front legs change into flippers, back legs had to disappear. External ears become internal, amongst many other structural changes, with skin, breathing and hearing changes. Then its young had to be fed underwater and it would have needed to have been born under water with a reversal to tale end out first, instead of head first.


Whales hold their breath for up to 1 hour 30 minutes and dive to great depths without getting the 'bends,' (nitrogen bubble build up.) on ascending. The whole breathing system had to redevelop. The whole lung blood system of capillaries had to undergo change to allow the nitrogen build up to dissipate easier.


It had to develop echolation, to 'talk' with each other. It would need to develop special structures and oil filled sinuses in the lower jaw. Echo timing gives distance and direction for ease of travel and location.


Feeding...The milk is pumped into the baby, rather than the baby having to suck it from the mother. Blue whales grow to 19 tonnes, at 11 months, before they are weaned from their diet of 450 litres of milk per day.And the milk is very different in composition from the milk of land mammals. It has twice as much protein, half as much sugar, and eight to ten times as much fat as cow's milk....

All in all a lot of dramatic changes...Dream on.

I think Andrewsarchus would have given up and used its well equipped 3 foot long head, fiercesome teeth and powerful jaws to do what it was designed for...Stay on land, hunt and eat. It had no reason to spend long weekends at the seaside.

Tao Equus quote:

What is this 'fundamental rule of biology' you speak of? You use a religeous belief not a scientific one. Life to a biologist is generated from things such as sunlight, water, chemicals and minerals....all of which are inanimate.


Creates or generates ? These things generate and help to procreate, but they didn't create. Their power alone could not form the initial self replicating animated cellular life by random procedures from inaminate chemical molecules.


Tao Equus quote:
Amino acids arrive on earth in meteorites. They appear to be abundant throughout our solar system. Earth over 4 billion years ago was subject to meteorite bombardment far far greater than today so there was an abundant supply of long chain chemicals.


From meteorites.....What amino acids ? ......Amino acids were found by experimentation, zapping ice, ice matching interstellar composition zapped with ultra violet radiation, Pure simulation to ascertain that amino acids could be there. Amounts of ammonia (NH3), methanol (CH3OH) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) were found. The experiment produced 16 amino acids, but only 6 are protein constituents.


They may be called ‘building blocks’. However, they are incapable of actually building anything.

Did amino acids arrive in long chain form (peptides) on burnt out meteoric rock ? No.

Which ones are needed to form life and how do they have to combine to self reproduce ? ...


Amino acid formation, stabilising and combination is infinately by far more a complex a procedure than this propaganda makes you believe. You over simplify the whole thing. Meteoric amino acids are similar to a few bricks falling onto a scorching earth and believing that a city can be built on its own from the bricks.


You can mix all of the essential amino acids required to create life found on planet earth in a test tube for eternity and you will never get life. If by some magical miracle, after you swatted a fly it still lived, mangled and flattened it would not reform into a fly again.....The constituents of life are there but the information intrinsic to polymerilized molecules has to form in a specific coded order to function and develop the power to regenerate.


Tao Equus quote:

Your use of mathematical red herrings like that is a common fiction propogated by the creationist lobby and is calculated using non scientificly credible assumptions. Even a bathtub full of primordial sea water undergoing random chemical reactions has better odds than you state. As the old saying goes "theres lies, damned lies and statistics"


The bath tub would have to be the size of a infinitezillion universes. Please show me how you come to your analysis regarding random chemical reactions. What calculations are you using ?


Tao Equus quote
It was'nt the result of chance it was a matter of adaptation and natural selection.


The initial foundation of life was said to be by chance. Chance factors that are essentially impossible. Without the foundation the house is unstable.


n4h1z said...
The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Tao Equus answer:
Another commonly used analogy of the creationist lobby with a sensationalist but fundamentaly flawed logic.


This is taken from Sir Fred Hoyles famous, (or to the evolutionist... infamous) analogy. In fact this ditty doesn't even go far enough to show how absurd random abiogenesis is. An individual tornado forming an aircraft in every aircraft hanger in the world all at the same time is still not a powerful enough analogy to that of the random cellular formation.
Please show me how this analogy is flawed.


Tao Equus quote:

Another commonly used sensationalism of the creationists is their list of 400 scientists that say evolution theory does not explain life. But there is a simalair list of 500 scientists all with the first name Steven that believe the opposite.


Quality not quantity. Remember the Piltdown man....500 scientific 'Stevens' et al believed this diatribe for 40 years....Because they wanted to believe it. It was barely challenged.


Tao Equus quote:

The arguments you cite, each and every one of them, do a far greater job of convincing me creationism is a fallusy (sic) of religeous dogmatics than convince me there is some intelligent design in life. A theory I do not discount. The only people going to be swayed by such arguments are those who are already converted and do not see logic as a useful tool in explaing the world around us.


You have got it in for the creationist. However, you've got to go even further to convince creationists that your concept of evolution and abiogenesis is of substance. So far you've put up basic speculations and attempted to slap n4h1z with a wet fish. I trust that you can substantiate your conjectures.


Some aspects of evolution and nearly all random abiogensis etc is over promoted, selling their material with bold headlines on glossy paper..... Inside, you find its flat news and printed on toilet paper. However, evolutionary adaptation within species is true, sometimes with great variations, but cross species, genus, family, order, class and phylum evolution is not wholey substantiated.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you for your thoughts E99.

The post from which you quote me was rather hastily written in the half hour I had before leaving for work. I do have responses to your challenges and will reply to you as soon as I have time.

Peace

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao Equus

Your quote:

There is nothing uncontrolled or purposeless about evolutionary thought on life. Indeed there are a number of factors or conditions that have to be met in order for life to exist and they believed that life started out simple but is now extremely complex.

You say evolutions 'thought' on life as if it preconceives what it needs to design, to come next, like an intelligent being would perceive. If it is to have purpose then it is a force of intelligence that understands by reasoning the future requirements. There is no intelligent force involved....Evolution is purposeless. Yes, Juantoo3...Once upon a time evolution was once thought to be teleology (explaining present structure in terms of its future purpose) but Darwinists have foregone this concept, but they keep going back to it. They change like the peppered moth.... white to black and back to white again, adapting to the changing colours of life.
No purpose is needed, just a blind process of random change that is selected for survival by the environment. But evolutionists today still use the concept of design and purpose to explain what they see in biology. How confused they are.
Life was complex from the very start.... You have to realise how complex the first living cell is and the means involved for it to go through a highly complex process to attain self replication to understand why the evolutionists skirt this issue with their fabrications to attempt to over simplify this animating process.
To form a self-reproducing cell from non-living chemicals requires the generation of a large amount of information, or specified complexity. A cell must be able to perform many chemical reactions in the right order, place and degree, which requires a number of specific catalysts (enzymes). It must also be able to reproduce the information needed to produce these enzymes.
It was an obvious creation, production of the earliest prokaryotic cells....abiogenesis. No other fossilised form of life has been found that precedes this extremely complex 'first life' form.

I am not a scientist or an evolutionist but a chef that did not even complete secondary education. Thus all my expressed thoughts are based on what I have learned through my own enquiry and not through formal education nor theological indoctrination. My thoughts on the origins of life are not shared by the majority of evolutionists but evolution theory is a part of the principle mechanism through which my own beliefs can be understood.

As I have said the reply from which you quote me was rather hastily concieved and there is much in it i would like to completely re-phrase, (a lesson not to hurry off replies in future). The first line is a good example but perhaps shows you what I have already stated in other posts, that I tend to favour the principles of Gaia Theory. In Gaia theory there is of course this purpose, the mirror of the purpose of evolution....survival. And of course Gaia theory using evolutionary principles has no need to be a 'teleology' as you state, but possibly is.

Abiogenesis has many unaswered questions. That does not mean the answers will not be found. The first 'life' to self-replicate was very probably not at the much higher level of evolution to which you elude, single celled organisms, but at the much simpler level of organic peptides or an RNA polymerase. The reason the fossil record only goes back to prokaryotic single celled organisms is precisely because its the cell wall that gets fossilised, all earlier life forms had no cell wall and were thus not preserved. And to say that these prokaryotic cells were extremely complex can also be misleading. They had nothing like the complexity seen in a modern single celled organism. So in short non-celular life was very likely thriving for some time before evolving very simple prokaryotic cells.

Tao Equus quote:

Most, if not all, bears are omniverous and and if they find themselves in a coastal habitat they will most certainly be found foraging in the sea. By degrees over several million years its not hard to imagine a bear becoming a whale.
Stick to imagining it only. Its pure speculation.
Its very hard to imagine any water bound mammal ever evolving into the whale, especially as one of them seems to be evolving into a duck, or is it vice versa ? It has the chromosomes of a bird, lays eggs and has been swimming a lot longer than Yogi. Actually its devolving, fossilised platypus teeth have been found (In South America, not Australia). Mixing Winnie the pooh, Moby Dick and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde makes for more fantasy.
Imagine, the duck billed platypus had become extinct before man and paleontologists were to uncover a fossil that looked like a mammal, yet also had bird and reptilian features. The evolutionists would declare that they've found the ultimate transitional ! They'd go quackers, as the duck billed platypus fits their bill, but we know that it doesn't fit the bill because its here, alive and well, and confounds the evolutionist, even if some try to hammer it into the evolutionary tree

What utter nonsense. The Platypus has no bird chromozones at all but a mixture of mammalian and reptile. Its duck shaped bill is nothing like the hard kerratin of a birds bill but is a soft fleshy nerve filled organ. It's ancestors did have teeth but its own evolutionary journey has seen the need for them dissapear and so adult animals only have vestigal horny pads. This is not de-evolution and the use of the term denotes you have a very poor understanding of what evolution is. The platypus has skeletal features found only in therapsids, the extinct group of reptiles from which many believe mammals evolved. The platypus far from confounding the evolutionist can be held up as an example of an intermediate transitional creature from reptilian to mammalian states.

To be exact, the animal said to have evolved into the whale was the Andrewsarchus, which was a fiercesome wolf-like creature, with a large head and sharp teeth.

I am sorry but again you try to shout me down using erronous information. There is genral consensus amongst palaeobiologists that Andrewsarchus appears far too late to have been the common ancestor of whales. www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/programs/whales/pdfs/t-activities-3.pdf
Infact Basilosaurus, an early whale was flourishing at the same time as Andrewsarchus.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your sources originate in crypto zoology, a fantasy land of strange creatures with little scientific credability.

Tao Equus quote:

What is this 'fundamental rule of biology' you speak of? You use a religeous belief not a scientific one. Life to a biologist is generated from things such as sunlight, water, chemicals and minerals....all of which are inanimate.

Creates or generates ? These things generate and help to procreate, but they didn't create. Their power alone could not form the initial self replicating animated cellular life by random procedures from inaminate chemical molecules.

The point to which I was replying stated 'generates'.

Tao Equus quote:
Amino acids arrive on earth in meteorites. They appear to be abundant throughout our solar system. Earth over 4 billion years ago was subject to meteorite bombardment far far greater than today so there was an abundant supply of long chain chemicals.


From meteorites.....What amino acids ? ......Amino acids were found by experimentation, zapping ice, ice matching interstellar composition zapped with ultra violet radiation, Pure simulation to ascertain amino acids could be there. Amounts of ammonia (NH3), methanol (CH3OH) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) were found. The experiment produced 16 amino acids, but only 6 are protein constituents.

Did amino acids arrive in long chain form (peptides) on burnt out meteoric rock ? No.

Which ones are needed to form life and how do they have to combine to self reproduce ? ...
Amino acid formation, stabilising and combination is infinately by far more a complex a procedure than this propaganda makes you believe. You over simplify the whole thing. Meteoric amino acids are similar to a few bricks falling onto a scorching earth and believing that a city can be built on its own from the bricks.

You can mix all of the essential amino acids required to create life found on planet earth in a test tube for eternity and you will never get life. If by some magical miracle, after you swatted a fly it still lived, mangled and flattened it would not reform into a fly again.....The constituents of life are there but the information intrinsic to polymerilized molecules has to form in a specific coded order to function and develop the power to regenerate.

Again here you make a lot of noise but say nothing. A type of common meteorite called a carbonaceous chondrite contains all 8 of the left handed amino acids life requires and uses for protien production. The meteorites do not have to be zapped or played with in any way. Infact using spectral analysis we can see the vast interstellar clouds of dust in which stars are formed are rich in amino acids. And if you dont believe the early earth was subject to heavy meteorite bombardment then grab a pair of binoculars and take a look at the moon.

Tao Equus quote:

Your use of mathematical red herrings like that is a common fiction propogated by the creationist lobby and is calculated using non scientificly credible assumptions. Even a bathtub full of primordial sea water undergoing random chemical reactions has better odds than you state. As the old saying goes "theres lies, damned lies and statistics"

The bath tub would have to be the size of a infinitezillion universes. Please show me how you come to your analysis regarding random chemical reactions. What calculations are you using ?

Again I was responding to the figures being stated by n4h1z that are a common statistcal nonsense pumped out by the creationist lobby, figures assumed on a single chemical reaction at a time taking place in sequential pattern. The truth is that many billions of reactions were taking place simultaneously in our primordial seas.

Tao Equus quote
It was'nt the result of chance it was a matter of adaptation and natural selection.

The initial foundation of life was said to be by chance. Chance factors that are essentially impossible. Without the foundation the house is unstable.

Impossible if you believe the creationist pseudo-scientists that have yet to produce credible evidence for any of thier assertions.

n4h1z said...
The idea of a cell as a work of "chance" can be simplified like this..Say a vicious tornada swept through a junkyard and juggling everything in its path. When the tornado is over a boeing-747 is assembled by "chance" from the materials therein.

Tao Equus answer:
Another commonly used analogy of the creationist lobby with a sensationalist but fundamentaly flawed logic.


This is taken from Sir Fred Hoyles famous, (or to the evolutionist... infamous) analogy. In fact this ditty doesn't even go far enough to show how absurd random abiogenesis is. An individual tornado forming an aircraft in every aircraft hanger in the world all at the same time is still not a powerful enough analogy to that of the random cellular formation.
Please show me how this analogy is flawed.

Abiogenesis is, as I stated at the begining of this post, still full of uncertainties and science still has many answers to find. But using statistical games to support your assertions of 'impossibility' does nothing more than discredit the whole foundation of your argument. When an evolutionary scientist looks at the question of abiogenesis there are still too many uncertainties to draw definitive conclusions. But if and when they do you can be sure that any statistical data will not be a set of random numbers plucked out of the air and multiplied together. Hoyles concept of statistical calculation was fundamentaly flawed, yours is too but multiplied by the same number as there are aircraft hangers in the world.

Tao Equus quote:

Another commonly used sensationalism of the creationists is their list of 400 scientists that say evolution theory does not explain life. But there is a simalair list of 500 scientists all with the first name Steven that believe the opposite.

Quality not quantity. Remember the Piltdown man....500 scientific 'Stevens' et al believed this diatribe for 40 years....Because they wanted to believe it. It was barely challenged.

If you want to start making lists of people making scientific assertions in favour of creationism that have credible qualifications let me know, you can send them to me on a postcard.

Tao Equus quote:

The arguments you cite, each and every one of them, do a far greater job of convincing me creationism is a fallusy (sic) of religeous dogmatics than convince me there is some intelligent design in life. A theory I do not discount. The only people going to be swayed by such arguments are those who are already converted and do not see logic as a useful tool in explaing the world around us.

You have got it in for the creationist. However, you've got to go even further to convince creationists that your concept of evolution and abiogenesis is of substance. So far you've put up basic speculations and attempted to slap n4h1z with a wet fish. I trust that you can substantiate your conjectures.

Some aspects of evolution and nearly all random abiogensis etc is over promoted, selling their material with bold headlines on glossy paper..... Inside, you find its flat news and printed on toilet paper. However, evolutionary adaptation within species is true, sometimes with great variations, but cross species, genus, family, order, class and phylum evolution is not wholey substantiated.

Yes I do. To be frank I find being asked to believe in creationism insulting. To me its about as logical as fitting square tyres on my car.
Evolutionists have never claimed to have all the answers, only a framework on which we can fit our answers as they come. As i say , that some Gaia Theory principle has a role in this is my hunch...but thats all it is. I will not try to ban kids from learning anybody elses views tho. Nor will I lobby government to stop supporting any research thats not weighted to support my view. And I will continue to look at the fossil shark tooth in front of me and know that there were sharks 100 million years before the story of genesis was ever concieved.

 

[n4h1z]

Peace to all...

Originally Posted by n4h1z

The idea that life is the product of an uncontrolled,purposeless process of coincidence is a 19th century myth. Looking at the matter from the primitive level of the science of the period, evolutionists assumed that life was very "simple".



Tao said...
There is nothing uncontrolled or purposeless about evolutionary thought on life. Indeed there are a number of factors or conditions that have to be met in order for life to exist and they believed that life started out simple but is now extremely complex

I was referring to the evolutionist in the 19th century who revived the theory of evolution. They thought the beginning of life on this planet started out "simple" but later to be proven totally wrong.

Originally Posted by n4h1z
According to Darwin, forinstance, whales evolved from bears that tried to hunt in the sea.


Tao said..
Most, if not all, bears are omniverous and and if they find themselves in a coastal habitat they will most certainly be found foraging in the sea. By degrees over several million years its not hard to imagine a bear becoming a whale.

Imagining was never hard at all. When i was 5 i used to draw a centaur with a scorpion body instead of a horse...yeah...it's time to grow up isn't it. There is no solid proof for this bear to whale story, not even in the fossil record. All there is, is theory, damn theories. And if the bear happened to evolved, then how come there aren't any bears evolved into flying animals coz as we know some bears can climb trees and once they are up there they'll have a problem going down. I wonder why

Originally Posted by n4h1z
Evolutionist says that the first organism was a cell that emerged from inanimate matter by chance. This evolutionary claim,however, is contrary to one of the most fundamental rules of biology: Life comes only from life, which means that inanimate matter cannot generate life.Life cannot come out from something lifeless.

Tao said...
What is this 'fundamental rule of biology' you speak of? You use a religeous belief not a scientific one. Life to a biologist is generated from things such as sunlight, water, chemicals and minerals....all of which are inanimate.

All the elements you stated generates life but doesn't create life. I think there is a clear difference there. It seems like you have a problem with my religious belief in this issue. Why?...aren't we here to share each others view?! I think this pop quiz might help simplify this matter for you :

Q: Name any living thing (in biological perspective) which comes from, originate, produced and / or re-produced by non-living things (.

Quote:
Originally Posted by n4h1z
As we know, the basic structure of life is protein, which is build up of many types of amino acids, which comprises of carbon,nitrogen,hydrogen,ferum,Oxygen and inorganic elements.The theory of evolution states that the first protein appear by chance in a primordial soup.Probability of amino acids to form a protein by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 950. According to mathematics principal,probability smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 is almost impossible.

Tao said...
Amino acids arrive on earth in meteorites. They appear to be abundant throughout our solar system. Earth over 4 billion years ago was subject to meteorite bombardment far far greater than today so there was an abundant supply of long chain chemicals.
Your use of mathematical red herrings like that is a common fiction propogated by the creationist lobby and is calculated using non scientificly credible assumptions. Even a bathtub full of primordial sea water undergoing random chemical reactions has better odds than you state. As the old saying goes "theres lies, damned lies and statistics"

From meteorites?!.yeah, another theory with no solid evidence..just assumptions, like the saying "assumptions is the mother of all ******"

Quote:
It is very certain that a structure this complex couldn't be the work of "chance".


It was'nt the result of chance it was a matter of adaptation and natural selection.

can you tell me exactly who is this "natural" who do all these selecting jobs. Did Darwin gave any reference to where we can acquire more knowledge about "natural". Does Darwin perceive "natural" as a mathematical logic issue or does he sees "natural" as an entity or a controlling being with its own power. If his answer is more to logical mathematical equation then it'll direct us to the subject of probability or mantic theory which is very much relevant to "chance" and from there we'll go back to square one. But i don't think good old Mr.D would prefer the later.

Tao said...
The arguments you cite, each and every one of them, do a far greater job of convincing me creationism is a fallusy (sic) of religeous dogmatics than convince me there is some intelligent design in life. A theory I do not discount. The only people going to be swayed by such arguments are those who are already converted and do not see logic as a useful tool in explaing the world around us.

"A theory u dont discount" ?!...so i guess theres no more reason to discuss this subject with you as you've already closed the path for youself.
And who are these people who are swayed from seeing logic anyway...the way i see it this are those bunch of people who accepts theory blindly but denying the logic of it in reality...as in the logic of the bear to whale fairy tale.

 

[wil]

I just heard recently about some group trying to create an alien life form, ie something that could exist in other environments than our own (methane based, etc) Their theory that if they prove they can create an 'alien' ameoba, then they determine that life exists on other planets..based on if the accident can happen here...therefor...QED... gotta love theory.

The question though, has any lab been able to duplicate the accident, ie create an ameoba or some one celled organisim from the inorganic material we've got hanging around...much less alien life.

Not that I want them to try, I think their errors with GMO's should be enough to quit them trying to play God...

namaste,

wil