Evolution a Religion

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Ah, the same old zombie arguments, unceremoniously decerementated and made to dance the Bones Boogie one more time.

Try one that hasn't been debunked a million times already.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
You are confusing complex with evolved, evolution can lead to greater simplicity if that confers an advantage. With regards eyes I would think it fairly obvious that greater complexity for the same utility is not an advantage.
Also if the flagellum did not evolve but was created who created it? To use your own words all your doing is solving one problem with another.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Also if the flagellum did not evolve but was created who created it?

The Creator. Duh...

With regards eyes I would think it fairly obvious that greater complexity for the same utility is not an advantage.

That goes against scientific laws (the foundation of real science). You can not have more complex on the bottom of the 'evolutionary tree', and less complex on top. It goes against well proven scientific laws, not only

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
So who created the creator?
There is no such thing as the evolutionary tree. If a simpler life form can survive better it will.
If you could kindly point out what scientific laws you think this goes against?

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose

The Creator. Duh...

Ahhh... instead of science we are resorting to "God of the Gaps" and then pretending to claim the lack of validity for such things based on known science. This might fly in a fundamentalist, evangelical church or at a Kirk Cameron seminar but it doesn't actually fly in any scientific debate. You show noting to support your position aside from an argument of incredulity relying heavily on the same old B.S. irreducible complexity line. Yawn... it's not even as if all bacterial flagellum are exactly the same so why would your creator(which creator is it again? Christian? Hindu? Odin? Zeus? maybe Marduk genetically created flagellum?) created flagellum and or everything else? its not as if the Abrahamic faiths are the original creation story or similar to many other creation stories. there are more discrepancies between those origin myths than there are in legitimate scientific explanations for origins of flagellum.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

www.health.adelaide.edu.au...
A little light reading for you-

Blocker, Ariel, Kaoru Komoriya, and Shin-Ichi Aizawa. 2003. Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(6): 3027-3030. www.pnas.org...
2. Cavalier-Smith, T. 1987. The origin of eukaryote and archaebacterial cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 503: 17-54.
3. Cavalier-Smith, T. 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52: 297-354.
4. Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
5. Hueck, C. J. 1998. Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62: 379-433.
6. Kuwajima, G. 1988. Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology 170: 3305-3309.
7. Matzke, N. J. 2003. (see above)
8. Miller, K. 2003. Answering the biochemical argument from design. in: Manson, N. (Ed.), God and design: the teleological argument and modern science, Routledge, London, pp. 292-307. www.millerandlevine.com...
9. Miller, K. 2004. The flagellum unspun. In Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, 81-97, eds. Dembski, W., and M. Ruse, New York: Cambridge University Press. www.millerandlevine.com...

Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. www.cbs.dtu.dk...

That goes against scientific laws (the foundation of real science). You can not have more complex on the bottom of the 'evolutionary tree', and less complex on top. It goes against well proven scientific laws, not only

which scientific "law" is violated then? Well, aside from your misconstruing of science in general and MES specifically... Evolution is not bound by any law to constantly make things more complex, evolution is simply a measurement of the sum of mutations and adaptations up to the point of our current level of observation of such. It isn't something that has the requirements you attempt to ascribe to it. H. Erectus for example, was much more well suited for bipedalism that HSS are. Our brains may in some or even many ways, be more evolved than theirs in regards to our ability to problem solve but physically, we get bad back, have issues with our pelvises as a result of our specific bipedal locomotion in comparison to them. HNS were stronger and more physically better specimens of humanity than we are. Evolution is about genetic mutation and what traits are present in those who are surviving today. it's not a force that necessitates increased fitness or advancement in a linear fashion to wards complexity. If you disagree, which is great, creating a dialogue on this subject is never a bad thing provided you are using science and can provide citations as opposed to throwing your hands in the air incredulously and proclaiming "god of the gaps" as your solution. the onus is upon you to demonstrate such and provide citations and support for your position. I've yet to see you do so.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

There is no such thing as the evolutionary tree.

Oky, the Geologic Column.

If a simpler life form can survive better it will.

I thought evolution was all about 'survival of the fittest'? If he was one of the fittest, why then did he not survive? Why evolve into something less fit? That is Devolution.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Fittest simply means best suited to the environment. Nothing to do with complexity. Do you really think complex is always better?
There is no predetermined path being followed. If a change is beneficial it will have a better chance of being passed on.
Any update on what scientific laws are being broken?

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

First- survival if the fittest was postulated by Darwin. It's an anachronistic 155 year old point of view. You may have thought that was the impetus for all evolution but that donkey poo. Fitness is also a discretionary axiom and is dependent on a multitude of variables including environmental niche and mutation at the genetic level. If an extinction event occurs and kills off vast swaths of life fitness is about what makes it past the genetic bottlenet not what was "most evolved ". You need to move past the origins of evolutionary
Theory as postulated in On the Origins of Soecies and get in touch with modern evolutionary synthesis. It's like comparing early 20 th century silent films with 21st century CGI. There is a common origin and source but what is know about film techniques and the advent of sound and digital film makes the entire thing a whole new ball game despite the origins being the same place.

Second- there is no such thing as devolving. It's bunk and drastically inaccurate way if viewing things. It's ok to not know stuff and be ignorant because you don't know any better. What's not ok is refusing to get a better understanding and cease wallowing in the ignorant mindset because updating your data set conflicts with a personal faith. Especially when that very faith, despite being around in various forms for 3 and a half millennia has likewise changed and adapted over the eons. Do you want to maintain that paradigm at all costs or do you want I grow and learn? That choice can only be made by you.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If you don't agree with Darwinian Evolution, them what do you agree with?

So I can see I am on my own in this debate. But here is one question for everyone. Can you offer me Scientific proof (Demonstrable, Observable and Repeatable)? No theory, nothing where you have to use assumptions. Hard Facts?


www.discovery.org...

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
What makes you think i don't agree with evolution? (Darwinian is a very archaic way of describing it as others have pointed out)
I am just pointing out your apparent misunderstanding of what evolution is. You seem to think there is some predetermined goal or that evolution requires ever greater complexity. It does not.
You stated earlier that evolution goes against the laws of science, would you kindly explain why you think this is? (to save time probably best not to post anything that assumes a closed system)

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

(to save time probably best not to post anything that assumes a closed system)

Just to avoid misunderstanding, are you saying we are in a closed system or open?

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Open.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Open.

First law of thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Open.

Can you offer me Scientific proof (Demonstrable, Observable and Repeatable)?

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Open.

First law of thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics

Could that be any more generalized? could you explain how evolution violates any aspect of thermodynamics please? it would make your concerns much easier to address.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose
Slightly disappointed, had briefly hoped that you were going to come back with something bit more original. Laws of thermodynamics when we have just confirmed that we are talking about an open system? Please explain how you think they possibly apply?

a reply to: ScepticScot

You actually thought that is all I'm going to give? You kept on asking, so I gave you something to get you to stop asking. Don't worry, I'm working on my full report.

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Those rules apply to closed systems. We are talking about open ones. So would you like to try again?

a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Do you still use command line driven interface with a computer? Because its akin to that. Quite simply Darwin postulated his theory with no knowledge of what drove evolution (genetic mutation), and the important part there is genetics. Untill the mid 20th century people did not know how the information was passed along. We do now.

a reply to: ScepticScot

All the scientific errors with the “Theory of Evolution”


Let’s start off with the beginning, the Big Bang. This is fundamental for the theory of evolution, and I will in short explain why. The Big Bang is how the earth came into being. And it was in the “Primordial Soup”, that the first single celled life form evolved.

But what is the Big Bang. In the minds of about 80% of evolutionists, it happened like the following. All the matter in the ‘universe’ got together and into a small, dense sphere, that began to spin, and exploded. This is how all the galaxies and stars were created. Here is where you get the first set of errors and questions. Where did the original matter come from? No scientist has been able to answer that. Another is, you cannot create order form disorder. It is like saying you can upgrade you home by throwing a grenade into it. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Many people say that this laws does not apply to open systems. In response to that, here is what Dr. Ross of Harvard University states:

“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Another problem that the Big Bang creates is the problem of Conservation of Angular Momentum. If the original cluster of matter was spinning, and exploded, the debris of the explosion would spin in the same direction. It is like the propeller of a helicopter shatters, the parts that fly of will also spin in the same direction the propeller was spinning when it shattered.
Why then are there planets, moon, stars and even entire galaxies spin in a different direction to the rest of the universe?

Now lest jump to the evolution of the first living organism. Most people have heard of Miller-Urey Experiment. Stanley Miller tried to demonstrate how life could have emerged on earth. He attempted to create, what he thought, would be the early earth’s atmosphere, using Hydrogen, Methane, Ammonia and Water. After heating to induce the evaporation of the mixture, he introduced electrical sparks, simulating electrical storm in the early earth’s atmosphere. He found that he had created Amino Acids, the building blocks of living organisms, which had collected at the bottom of the mixture.

This was an amazing discovery, back then. But in reality he had only created a mixture of Amino Acids, both left and right handed. This means that he created something that could never have assembled into something living. Interesting to know, is that he never added Oxygen, because that would have killed, or even prevented any Amino Acids from forming. Without Oxygen, how could life had survived?

Biologist Jonathan Wells explains:
“Stanley Miller put together a glass apparatus and in that apparatus he put a mixture of gasses that people of the time thought reflected the atmosphere of the early earth. And those gasses were Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen and Water Vapour. But then the professional opinion of what was there in the early earth changed. In the 1960s, geochemists revised their hypothesis and decided that the Hydrogen, being very light, would have escaped into outer space, the earth’s gravity isn’t strong enough to hold it. And probably the early earth’s atmosphere then, consisted of we now see coming out of volcanoes, today, namely Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Water Vapour. Well if the early earth’s atmosphere consisted of those gasses, then Stanley Miller’s experiment would not work. In fact he himself tried it with those gasses, and he found that he couldn’t produce any Amino Acids at all. So the experiment falls apart once you use a more realistic mixture of gasses in the apparatus”

(Just the beginning)