Evolution Cannot be Proven

reply to post by Deaf Alien


In small pockets.

My point is that the conditions for life statistically low. So low in fact that there is no way that someone can objectively say that the universe is built for life.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


It has been a while. I searched and found some articles. Few to start you off

Chirality
www.creationsafaris.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Deaf Alien]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
My point is that the conditions for life statistically low. So low in fact that there is no way that someone can objectively say that the universe is built for life.

Okay, good point.

We cannot say that the universe is full of life, has few, or just us.

Thought I'd quote this from wiki

In biology Many biologically active molecules are chiral, including the naturally occurring amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), and sugars. In biological systems, most of these compounds are of the same chirality: most amino acids are L and sugars are D. Typical naturally occurring proteins, made of L amino acids, are known as left-handed proteins, whereas D amino acids produce right-handed proteins. The origin of this homochirality in biology is the subject of much debate. Most scientists believe that Earth life's choice of chirality was purely random, and that if carbon-based life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, their chemistry could theoretically have opposite chirality. Enzymes, which are chiral, often distinguish between the two enantiomers of a chiral substrate. Imagine an enzyme as having a glove-like cavity that binds a substrate. If this glove is right-handed, then one enantiomer will fit inside and be bound, whereas the other enantiomer will have a poor fit and is unlikely to bind. D-form amino acids tend to taste sweet, whereas L-forms are usually tasteless. Spearmint leaves and caraway seeds, respectively, contain L-carvone and D-carvone - enantiomers of carvone. These smell different to most people because our olfactory receptors also contain chiral molecules that behave differently in the presence of different enantiomers. Chirality is important in context of ordered phases as well, for example the addition of a small amount of an optically active molecule to a nematic phase (a phase that has long range orientational order of molecules) transforms that phase to a chiral nematic phase (or cholesteric phase). Chirality in context of such phases in polymeric fluids has also been studied in this context (Srinivasarao, 1999).

See how you all have avoided the issue.

Mods it is quite obvious their responses have nothing to do with the subject and should be removed.

Now back to the OP's point: EVOLUTION CANNOT BE PROVEN

My post which should that microevolution is being substituted for proof of macroevolution and it showed why it is a fallacious argument as the mechanisms are already present for these adaptive changes.

(so when I post a quote its plagiarism but when you do it its called a reference? HA HA HA nice try little one)

These are tricks the masses of uninformed drones bring out and are regularly shot down...yet they continue to trot out the same tired points and references, which have long since been dismissed by the very same scientific community.
I quoted MAYR "What Evolution Is" (2001) and showed how his reasoning was flawed by the sources he used to bolster this theory. I then proceeded to remove fiction from fact and disabled his major points of reference, ie Haeckel, Futuyma, Ridley, Strickberger, et al.
All I needed to do is remove one of these "legs" of the theory and it collapses.
What did I get as a response....lies and verbal assaults.
Seems the defenders of this quote unquote theory need to check the sources from which they derive their basis.

So do as the OP asked and prove evolution, not adaptation or another mechanism for selection.

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
My post which should that microevolution is being substituted for proof of macroevolution and it showed why it is a fallacious argument as the mechanisms are already present for these adaptive changes.

WHAT?! Are you that stupid?! Really!

For goodness sake, macro and micro are exactly the same with the one difference being that of timescale. These terms, micro and macro, haven't been used in the scientific community since genetics came onto the seen.

Way to be current.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
My point is that the conditions for life statistically low. So low in fact that there is no way that someone can objectively say that the universe is built for life.

Sounds like someone is making an argument FOR a creator since the universe is so unfriendly to life.

reply to post by Good Wolf


We are back to the fairy tale again...
Well we should see Macroevolution happening all around us then since as you claim 400 million years of life have elapsed.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Did Hoyle In his book "The Intelligent Universe" (1983) account for the left and right handed molecules?

"Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?" According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40 000 power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50 000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." ("Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105)

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

We are back to the fairy tale again...
Well we should see Macroevolution happening all around us then since as you claim 400 million years of life have elapsed.

first I was talking about a frog.

Secondly, We do see it all the damn freaking time! It's not our fault you put your fingers in your ears and say lalalal. I gave you a list of observed speciation events. Given some time and you'll see some big changes take place, like the ones in the fossil record!.

reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople


Given materials that protect enzymes and chains plus a billion years of opportunity and BAMM! you get life!

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople

Originally posted by Good Wolf
My point is that the conditions for life statistically low. So low in fact that there is no way that someone can objectively say that the universe is built for life.

Sounds like someone is making an argument FOR a creator since the universe is so unfriendly to life.

Not necessarily. Look at it this way:
You buy a lottery ticket hoping to win the jackpot. But the odds are so huge against you winning the jackpot. Right? You will never win it in your life probably.
However, in a pool of millions of people who buy lottery tickets. Someone will certainly win the jackpot in the short run.

You have billions and billions of stars and planets. Few of them might hit the jackpot and start life.

Again, I find myself repeating myself, so do try to pay attention this time.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Bottom line, can the Theory of Evolution be proven- no. Can it be disproven at this time- no. It is the best model out today that can explain the data observed in nature. And unlike you, if the data pointed in another direction, and another viable theory could explain it, the scientific community would drop evolution like a hot potato. Let's face facts, you are against evolution for one of two reasons; either you disbelieve because your 'Holy' book contradicts it, or because your ego won't let you accept being a close relative of apes. Both are emotional rationales, not scientific. Twisting the science is not going to disprove the theory. You got a better one with as much or more data supporting it, well then, let's hear it spanky, otherwise stop spewing hateful arguements and move along.

Now on to the new 'material'.

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
These are tricks the masses of uninformed drones bring out and are regularly shot down...yet they continue to trot out the same tired points and references, which have long since been dismissed by the ... scientific community.

This applies more to you than the rest of us. And just what 'scientific community' are you speaking of, because last I checked, the legitimate scientific community supports evolution, not rejects it. If it had, every Bible thumper in the world would be able to ram Creationism back into schools and science textbooks, and I'm fairly sure that it would have made the news. Face it, you and those like you are in the minority. Anyone with a modicum of scientific education accepts evolution, as it is still, after 200 years since Darwin, the best theory to fit the facts. But then again, you like to play it fast and loose with those pesky facts, which do not support your position. Need I really say more?



[edit on 26-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Isaac Asimov did the math and said that we'd have 250,000 earth like planets sporting human like civilisations.

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

Did Hoyle In his book "The Intelligent Universe" (1983) account for the left and right handed molecules?

Yes, that's him. Quite frankly, I am surprised that no creationist, as far as I know, has brought this up on ATS. It was one of the biggest topics in creationism.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Well then you should have said 213 million years. That is said to be the earliest known "frog", not 400 million years.

Can't even get the simplest facts correct when quoting from the "fossil record" you so vigorously defend.
Fact check on aisle two

Quote Wiki:
Until the discovery of the Early Permian Gerobatrachus hottoni, a stem-batrachian with many salamander-like characteristics, the earliest known proto-frog was Triadobatrachus massinoti, from the 250 million year old early Triassic of Madagascar.[39] The skull is frog-like, being broad with large eye sockets, but the fossil has features diverging from modern amphibia. These include a different ilium, a longer body with more vertebrae, and separate vertebrae in its tail (whereas in modern frogs, the tail vertebrae are fused, and known as the urostyle or coccyx). The tibia and fibula bones are unfused and separate, making it probable Triadobatrachus was not an efficient leaper. The earliest true frog is Vieraella herbsti, from the early Jurassic (188–213 million years ago). It is known only from the dorsal and ventral impressions of a single animal and was estimated to be 33 mm (1.3 in) from snout to vent. Notobatrachus degiustoi from the middle Jurassic is slightly younger, about 155–170 million years old. It is likely the evolution of modern Anura was completed by the Jurassic period. The main evolutionary changes involved the shortening of the body and the loss of the tail. The earliest full fossil record of a modern frog is of sanyanlichan, which lived 125 million years ago

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

Isaac Asimov did the math and said that we'd have 250,000 earth like planets sporting human like civilisations.

Thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope, that has now grown to around a billion billion or 1.000,000,000,000,000,000 possible habital planets in the known universe. Go Science!

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

Well then you should have said 213 million years. That is said to be the earliest known "frog", not 400 million years.

Can't even get the simplest facts correct when quoting from the "fossil record" you so vigorously defend.

I'm sure that would apply if we were actually talking about the actual evolution of the frog but rather you were talking about frog to prince. 400 million years was a time frame for that kind of change.
look o can use similes too

But I see you didn't take on my other point.

Pick and choose you're battles huh. Yea well you'd have to.

reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople


So let me get this right, you just quoted something from wikipedia that supports evolution, otherwise how did we get present day frogs, to support your anti-evolution arguement?!?!? OK, Corky, you just shot yourself in the foot!