Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Let's do some math again, if you only compare 1% of the human and chimp genomes (for example only protein-coding sequences as in most comparisons with the high ballpark numbers, 95%+), ...

Actually, the high ballpark numbers usually come from only a portion of protein-coding sequences, namely the alignable ones.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Actually, the high ballpark numbers usually come from only a portion of protein-coding sequences, namely the alignable ones.

I also calculated an 84% match. The human genome is 4% shorter than a chimp's. Of that 96% length match, there is a 90% approximate alignability match, bringing it to 86%. And then of those 86% alignable strains there is the 98% match, bringing the actual aligning matchability to 84% between chimps and humans.

Granted I used numbers from a study that may be biased towards evolution, so it could be even lower. But it is unfortunate for the knowledge of humankind that they so deceptively spit out that "99% match" in various sci-fi articles online.

a reply to: cooperton
I think xtrozero's 99.6% came from comparisons between bonobos and chimps, not humans and chimps. At least those are the results I get from google when searching for the 99.6% number. The first link google spits out is a news article that also brings up the 99% human-chimp DNA similarity myth.* It's from 2012:

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science | AAAS

*: Even wikipedia has a page about "The Myth of the One Percent". Yet the things they mention on that page does not match up well will what they claim on their page for "humanzee", which is:

Chimpanzees and humans are closely related, sharing 95% of their DNA sequence and 99% of coding DNA sequences.

Note that they don't say "99% of alignable protein-coding DNA sequences". And if you consider everything mentioned on the other page (about the myth), you don't get 95% either:

... scientists now believe that there is approximately a 3% divergence ... on top of the originally believed 1%. Additionally, ... the two species differs by 6.4%. There are also differences in the genetic networks and chromosome structure that make it difficult to quantify the relative change.[3]

So just adding up those differences alone (ignoring the differences mentioned at the end, which would lower the final similarity % even more), you get 10.4% difference and are left with 89.6% similarity. Of course still a bogus number based on comparisons between a humanized chimp genome and an incomplete human genome (the chimp genome also still seems incomplete as far as I can tell, but whatever, surely the same issues that prevented them from sequencing 8% of the human genome prevented them from sequencing a certain % of the chimp genome, and they only sequenced that part of the human genome in 2022, which would get priority over doing the rest of the chimp genome because of its importance for the field of human health care).

Very interesting discussion on life. Its 3+ hours long, so not for the Tic Tok crowd.

a reply to: Xtrozero

2:08, the 'hydrothermal vents' storyline again? I guess a popular myth never dies, even when the relevant science already revealed it to be "impossible" decades ago. (and that's supposedly "grounded in science"? As Nick Lane puts it just before that. It ignores the relevant science that shows it to be "impossible"; quoting from below)

Watching the World (Awake!—1989)

Another Theory Squashed

A theory that life on earth began at hydrothermal (hot water) vents in the ocean floor has been proved false by recent experiments. “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur,” said chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California. The theory had been advanced after the discovery of thriving bacteria and other organisms, such as giant clams and worms, around the hydrothermal vents. Simulating the temperatures and pressures of the vents, Bada and his colleague, Stanley L. Miller, found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, decomposed rapidly under such conditions. “The combination of amino acids into larger peptide molecules, known as polymerization, was found to be impossible in the presence of water at any temperature,” notes The New York Times. “And more complex molecules carrying the genetic code, a requirement for living organisms, did not last long in the extreme heat.” According to the Times, the researchers concluded “that the hot waters in the primitive oceans would have destroyed rather than created organic compounds in the primitive oceans.”

More issues with that storyline:

originally posted by: whereislogic

2:08, the 'hydrothermal vents' storyline again? I guess a popular myth never dies, even when the relevant science already revealed it to be "impossible" decades ago. (and that's supposedly "grounded in science"? As Nick Lane puts it just before that. It ignores the relevant science that shows it to be "impossible"; quoting from below)

Well you got me there...geez.

I love how people like you pull something from a creation site and say here is proof xyz is impossible, then drop the mic and walk away. The other thing I find completely frustrating is your side always mixes in the "spark of life" with the evolutionary process. If you watched the whole thing I commend you, but if that almost 4 hours didn't move you an inch from the notion that God just pops advance life into existence in their current form with no changes through time, then you wasted your time, and wasting mine by once again saying basically everything they talked about is false. Even in the interview they said there are many ideas on how life starts, so no ones really knows truly and whether the start is even maybe something as small as two particles. They did say it needed heat/energy, water etc .as part of the chemical reaction, and that was about it as to the spark of life. So we are talking a few mins of almost 4 hours.

If you want to say God created life as in the fundamental force to that spark then I have no argument with you as I can nether say yes or no, say God doesn't or does exist. These are non-falsifiable statement...

If you watch that interview and not be amazed to listen to someone on that level of intellect and just write it off as nothing I think you live a very limited and boring life, but hey you got your God...

originally posted by: Xtrozero


Well you got me there...geez.

I love how people like you pull something from a creation site and say here is proof xyz is impossible, then drop the mic and walk away.

Well if it's possible Where's the lab experiment that shows viable RNA and protein polymers emerging from underwater vents? The moment these hypothetical polymers would be exposed to water they would begin to decompose.

Not to mention the acidic conditions would have denatured the proteins if they were formed at all. Denatured means they can't work. For these and other reasons it is impossible for life to emerge by random chance.

originally posted by: cooperton


Well if it's possible Where's the lab experiment that shows viable DNA and protein polymers emerging from underwater vents? The moment these hypothetical polymers would be exposed to water they would begin to decompose.

Not to mention the acidic conditions would have denatured the proteins if they were formed at all. Denatured means they can't work. For these and other reasons it is impossible for life to emerge by random chance.

How did God do it then?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

How did God do it then?

Not by random chance

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
I love how people like you pull something from a creation site and say here is proof xyz is impossible, then drop the mic and walk away.

I'm not going anywhere. And mind you, it was The New York Times describing the scientific research of Jeffrey L. Bada and Stanley L. Miller that used the word "impossible" to describe this particular storyline in light of the relevant science and chemistry. None of these sources favor creation as the explanation for the origin of life. They all support philosophical naturalism and the accompanying evolutionary philosophies. Especially Stanley L. Miller of the famous Urey-Miller experiment pertaining the chemical evolution of life by abiogenesis, chance and exclusively natural mindless processes.

It's telling when someone dismisses their admissions as merely being "something from a creation site", just because of which site is quoting them; rather than responding to these issues with the hydrothermal vent storyline, as well as the issues with presenting it as being an opinion 'grounded in science', when it simply ignores any science that is inconvenient for the storyline in the manner described by Bada and The New York Times there.

It also sort of undermines any right to complain about young earth creationists presenting their 'evidence' for a young earth that has already been refuted or shown to be a hoax, falsified or misrepresented for decades (or decades ago).

originally posted by: cooperton

Not by random chance

Neither does evolution, but there is no set end game with evolution, so please explain how God did it and when since you are so fervors to attack evolution. You can't just write books against evolution and come back with a 4 word line in the replacement.

originally posted by: whereislogic

It also sort of undermines any right to complain about young earth creationists presenting their 'evidence' for a young earth that has already been refuted or shown to be a hoax, falsified or misrepresented for decades (or decades ago).

What is a young earth?

Both scientist and creationist agree on one point and that is the so called spark of life at this time is unknown. Scientist can see the parts but can not tell us exactly how it happens. Creationist just raise their hands and say God did it and walk away.

All that is not what we are talking about here, and what that is is how life evolves. I'm not saying in the terms of Darwinism, I'm saying just how does life change as we can see changes. You though constantly refute it all as a totally known and proven hoax and that is total BS. Your side may think that, but the science community hasn't and is continually growing in their knowledge while your side is stuck with their one statement "God did it". You are not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours, so maybe we leave it at that, but your side is rather conveniently limited in providing something real. Any minute now Cooperton will post his endless replies that xyz is just to complicated to happen naturally, and so God did it, but in the end it is the same repeated come back, and I think in 2022 we are well beyond Darwinism and "God did it".

Can any of you see how old world that kind of proof is? 1900 yes, 2022 no....

originally posted by: Xtrozero

How did God do it then?

By the means described by Nick Lane regarding ATP synthase in the video I linked in response to the hydrothermal vents storyline, at 5:35, highlighted in light blue.

But I guess you haven't noticed that Nick Lane is actually being quoted in that video, because even if it did, it wouldn't count for you as being scientific because of the source of that video* quoting him. (*: and particularly because of their views regarding these subjects). Possibly, you won't even look at what I'm referring to (and the term highlighted in light blue, which also describes the cause for these machines to emerge, and is an answer to the 'how' question), for the same reason. As well as not really willing to consider an answer to that question seriously. You had other motives for raising that question.

Regarding the video below: Atheists aren't the only types that behave in this manner regarding the views they express or claims they make:

A little more about that behaviour:

originally posted by: whereislogic
As well as not really willing to consider an answer to that question seriously.

You feel so comfortable attacking anything on my end, ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, so it is time to change it up some and answer my question......how?

We can start with whether earth is 4.5 billion years old...lets just start there...

I'm not an atheist, and I can not prove if life was intelligent designed or not. I have also said I find it boring to debate this since it is a non-falsifiable statement that can not be proven or disproven.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
You feel so comfortable attacking anything on my end, ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative, so it is time to change it up some and answer my question......how?

The longer you ignore the answer to that question incidentally also included in the quotation by Nick Lane I was referring to (even though he would never spell it out like that, i.e. making it clear that it's actually an answer to the 'how'-question), and paint you own behaviour on me Isaiah 5:20,21 style, the more obvious it becomes that you don't want to seriously consider an answer. You just want me to say something that you can deny, ridicule, or turn into a strawman argument or oversimplification to denigrate it (as with the phrase 'God did it', when you're basically arguing that 'nature did it', in spite of the evidence that shows that chance + the forces of nature exclusively are incapable of producing machinery and technology in general, let alone the highly sophisticated machinery and technology that makes up life specifically, and in spite of the evidence of the well-established known cause for the emergence of machinery and technology, as semi-admitted by Nick Lane by using the correct terminology even though he claims to believe otherwise and promotes otherwise, highlighted in lightblue in the video you probably still haven't watched because you repeated the 'how' question while I already referred you to that Nick Lane quote that describes that answer in 2 simple words, whereas 1 word in there is the main answer, the other makes it slightly more specific).

We can start with whether earth is 4.5 billion years old...lets just start there...

Let's not, cause it's distracting and unrelated to the point I was making when I made a remark about young earth creationists. That remark alone also already shows that I do not agree with the claims made by young earth creationists regarding an earth and universe that is only thousands of years old rather than millions or billions. And because, as the video about the 'hydrothermal vents' storyline also points out, additional time doesn't help your view of a naturalistic origin of life by chance. It makes the problems* described in that video, as well as by Bada, Miller and The New York Times, worse. *: the problems in regards to the plausibility of the various proposed storylines concerning a naturalistic origin of life by chance.

I'm not an atheist, and I can not prove if life was intelligent designed or not. I have also said I find it boring to debate this since it is a non-falsifiable statement that can not be proven or disproven.

When the scientific evidence is not pointing in the desired direction > play the agnostic code card (while arguing or reasoning to yourself that 'it's not science' because it's not falsifiable, the undesired conclusion by induction that is, based on the actual science, the well-established facts). How convenient...

You may find it boring to debate, but you were the one who decided to post an almost 4 hour long video about the "Origin of Life, Evolution, Aliens, Biology, and Consciousness" in this thread, out of the blue (as in not responding to anyone specifically). A video that is arguing that no intelligence was involved in the origin of life by promoting naturalistic evolutionary storylines that attribute the origin of life to chance events and mindless processes. Surely you were not expecting some kind of scrutiny of the claims made, such as Nick Lane's implication that the 'hydrothermal vents' storyline (which is at the center of his research as he explains in your video, so quite valid as a subject to respond to specifically) is "grounded in science". When it's somewhat obvious that it's blatantly ignoring the science that is inconvenient for the storyline's perceived plausibility (in the eyes of biased beholders), as Nick Lane does when he's talking about it, avoiding any mention of these inconvenient facts that aren't useful to what he's selling (including the research he's selling as something useful and scientific to do, when it has already been proven to be a dead end decades ago, but he'll continue collecting money for it in the form of grants and salary).

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

a reply to: whereislogic

You said this 50 times now "'hydrothermal vents" and say it couldn't go that way. In the video they agree no one knows for sure, so you can just keep saying it and really it doesn't mean anything. Its one hypostasis of many, and it ends there, so not some written in stone event as you suggest it is by constantly referring to it as a main point of error.

I have asked in your words how does life form directly into a complex and advance lifeform. I also ask is it something God does once or over and over, so at some point does a 1000 new animals just appear. Much of what creationist talk about does not work well within our universe as we deal with time that plays into it all.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Nick Lane's research centers around the 'hydrothermal vents' storyline (version of events). That's why it's an appropiate subject to respond to specifically (when responding to the video you posted). As I mentioned before. So what if it's one version of many? Neurotic speculation with no regard for the actual relevant science that demonstrates the speculation to be a dead end, doesn't help the argument for a naturalistic origin of life by chance and mindless processes (and again I'm referring to all the different variations of this general storyline, none of which qualify as scientific hypotheses as they are defined in the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories).

In the video they agree no one knows for sure, ...

Red herring, but making sweeping statements about what others supposedly don't know for sure was never gonna help the implication made by Nick Lane that I was responding to, namely that the 'hydrothermal vents' storyline is "grounded in science". Or other versions of the general storyline of a naturalistic origin of life by chance and mindless processes (that ignore the same issues that are apparent for the hydrothermal vents version of that general storyline; those inconvenient facts of chemistry and physics you don't want to talk about or draw any attention to either, hence your repeated attempts to steer the conversation elsewhere).

I have asked in your words how does life form directly into a complex and advance lifeform.

Not exactly what you asked, but I've already answered the other similar 'how' question (that includes the word "God") many times on this forum, and it was answered in this thread by my referral to 2 words used by Nick Lane, one of which I've used in my answers on this forum as well (the main one). I could easily repeat it again, even with some elaboration, but why would I when it's so clear you just want to change the subject and draw attention away from my commentary in response to the Nick Lane video you posted? And in particular my objection to Nick Lane's implication that the version of the general naturalistic storyline that he's researching is "grounded in science".

I don't understand why creationists would try to argue their point on a conspiracy forum, and not somewhere that concerned itself with evolutionary biology - or even science in general.

Proportionally, I would say there are very very few science 'professionals' here. By that I mean people who are educated in a specific life-science subject and hopefully lectures in it, and are adequately able to answer or propose technical questions.

By contrast, I would imagine there are no 'professional' religious experts that contribute here. Why would they? Surely, they are confident in their beliefs to avoid such places? Being a member of a conspiracy site for a religious person would suggest that maybe religion itself could be a conspiracy. Perhaps it is.

So why? Why do the creationists ask questions that nobody here can adequately answer? Why is the subject of creationism resolved on a conspiracy forum? Why do the religious zealots not see the irony at play here - and yet even contribute to it?

Earth was seeded by aliens. They also nudged the moon into place to act as a night light.

At least alien involvement is possible, unlike the goddunit fairytale.

originally posted by: baggy7981
Earth was seeded by aliens. They also nudged the moon into place to act as a night light.

At least alien involvement is possible, unlike the goddunit fairytale.

Ahh so a mutating pond goo that miraculously defies thermodynamics is your preferred mythos?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I don't understand why creationists would try to argue their point on a conspiracy forum, and not somewhere that concerned itself with evolutionary biology - or even science in general.

It is sufficient even if one person is brought out of the hopelessness of atheism due to realizing the absurdity of random chance creating logical structures.