Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

reply to post by andersensrm

Just added you to my friends list. You actually seem to understand.. You're a rare breed, even in these forums.. Sad but true. People are too busy debating black vs white to see the gray area. And for some reason both sides usually think they are intellectually superior.. It often pains me to watch it.. Both sides share the exact same mentality, but are too busy pointing fingers to see their similarities.. The hypocrisy goes far too.. For example.. People who believe in evolution claim abiogenesis is a completely separate hypothesis and issue, and yet bash creation/ID, although according to themselves, how life originated is a separate issue.. I don't understand how they are blind to these things. I've tried arguing many times that evolution and ID/creation are not necessarily opposites.. But people don't get that either..

Originally posted by InnerstellarOne
oh ooohhhhh, Evolutionists aint going to like this one

.....

too bad because for a creationist and Christian this is pure Win

One word i can say is, The Human Brain.

I think you called it right there. The Human Brain. Have you noticed the differences in the way people think in this forum? There are many schools of thought, from the very mundane, to almost pure genius, every religious belief, all of our different likes, and dislikes.

I think that when everyone is born, they have a default connection to the collective conciousness. This is an energy stream that surrounds the Earth and permeates everything. As time goes on, some build on their default connection, and make it bigger. Some make other connections, some make a lot of connections, and some even form a networks of connections across the field.

Science tells that there are at least 10 dimensions, some say it may be as many as 1000. Imagine being able to connect with, and interact with all of these dimensions at the same time?

I know I am getting way off topic here, but I have to get this out. Thinking process. I think it is pretty much equally divided. Some think in a Linear fashion, while other think in a Multidimensional fashion. The linear thinker will think that way, a leads to be, 2 is after 1, and so on. Obstacles are not easily overcame, and there is a great deal of head butting.
A multidimensional thinker will see everything about a thing, and every way around it. Can you see the difference here? We do not think in the same manner, so can never be alike. A Creationist and an Evolutionist will never see eye to eye, and one will never ever be able to convince the other. It is a distinct division, you see? Now for myself, I can see it both ways. There was a Creation, and then the Creation Evolved into something new. What's so hard about that?

reply to post by Barcs

This is your last chance. I am giving you the full opportunity to present objective evidence to prove your case instead of talking in circles on philosophy. Please make sure your next response is nothing but facts. No more of this guesswork and assumptions, please. Talking down to other people does not prove your case, neither does calling people atheists.

Hmmm...last chance.....as in last dance....last hurahh.....last post from you?

Oh well...

But if the video is not proof enuff then I don't know if there's any evidence that will do just that-- in any case I'll give it a try:

Now thanks to your link in addition to BLIND CHANCE EVENTS as the prime mover of evolution we can also add MISTAKE as another mover to the evolution theory.

If this was your intention in providing the link.

As any science buff knows - evolution scientist say that MUTATION was what made evolution possible.

It's what made species evolve into another species - so they say - but the FACTS don't support the theory

Using your link learn.genetics.utah.edu...

we can see this to be the case.

Your link asked this question:

WHAT CAUSES DNA MUTATIONS?

The answer:

Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

In other words these mutations are caused by "ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals".

So all three elements can cause mutations. But to say that "nuclear radiation" also caused evolution by way of mutation is a stretch. But then again to evolutionists anything goes even it's not supported by facts.

Be that it may - if you believe this to a fact, question is:

Can you predict when these mistakes will occur, how often and at what rate?

Answer is NO - these mutations are unpredictable unless someone is guiding the event - thus it's all CHANCE EVENTS.

But at what rate?

Your link says:

the number of mistakes that remain incorporated into the DNA is even lower than this because cells contain special DNA repair proteins that fix many of the mistakes in the DNA that are caused by mutagens. The repair proteins see which nucleotides are paired incorrectly, and then change the wrong base to the right one.

Did you get that one? It says it's a low rate because of the "special DNA repair proteins that fix many of the mistakes in the DNA".

That's the reason why we don't see many MUTANTS. But when mutations occur (and they do happen) the progeny usually is inferior and is short lived.

AND this is the REASON why mutation will not work in evolution theory - unless one makes an assumption that ALL known facts about the checks and balances within the cell are ignored and violated - none existent.

Yes I guess it's possible if CHANCE EVENT was the prime mover but alas - you don't believe this.

You believe that "Natural Selection" was the prime mover of evolution theory.

But how likely will this happen in the real world - highly unlikely unless like I said you're a believer of evolution theory.

Now the fact is the CELL was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED as evidence by the checks and balances in the cell. There's no other logical explanation to arrive at unless you believe that evolution theory was also responsible for coming up with these complex and intricate checks and balances.

It's like the question of chicken and egg - which came first the checks and balances or the DNA or the RNA or is it the DNA first then the RNA protein then the checks and balances.

Then you can add to these intricate checks and balances these simple questions:

Where did the INSTRUCTIONS came from?

Did Natural Selection or Blind Chance Events came up with the instructions or was it purposely DESIGNED?

What do the Facts show?

How could "NS" organized such intricate and very complex processes?

Did the cell need to mutate first before coming up with the code?

What do evolutionists believed? Was it with BLIND CHANCE, Luck and accident as the source of all the DNA instructions. It must be because the alternative is unpalatable

The CELL was Intelligently and purposefully DESIGNED.

To think that the DNA code came about by BLIND CHANCE EVENT staggers the mind and only one who is close minded will accept that a 400+ volumes of encyclopedias wrote themselves without any author - all by CHANCE EVENTS!

BUT the DNA code is more than ALL of the encyclopedias put together- - in fact scientist are still struggling on how to deciphers the billions of instructions inside a DNA molecule- thus they call it "junk dna".


I could go more but let's see if my first assumption is correct - that is if you're still around.

that was a good watch... so my theory would be life was created by an extremely complex being made up of non cellular origins?

i wonder what planet our ancestors lived on before earth?

reply to post by Barcs


continuing...

you said

Why are you still dodging the links posted and afraid to admit you are basing your opinion on faith and nothing more? Why are you ignoring the details of the theory and only offering hasty generalizations? I love how you sum up evolution by "chance events". By all means, give us the details. What chance events? It you want to be technical everything that ever happens is a "chance event".

Uhh... nope - not dodging your links - in fact I would like to thank you for posting them as they add to my collection of things to read.

As for the details of the theory - to contrary, I'm addressing them detail by detail then sum them up to prove my point.

For example do you disagree with your widely recognized evolutionists / atheist Mr. PZ Myers? He clearly stated in his seminars or sermons that CHANCE EVENTS was responsible for the existence and evolution of life.

Other evolutionist say that some randomness play a vital role in selecting the right gene to start life.

One famous evolutionits claimed that a "Selfish Gene" became self-aware and started life as we know it. Some have different theories but all shows chance events as the x-factor.

But be that as it may - YOU do agree that randomness is part of evolution - if not the MAJOR part of evolution theory.

Like you said:

1. The only random part about evolution is the genetic mutations.


Here is a link on how genetic mutations are caused:

learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Now you tell me which part of that is blind chance events?

Ultraviolet light? Sun rays? Cells not replicating properly? Is that all blind chance? Did god do it? If so, then why do cells fail to replicate properly in so many cases? Isn't your definition of god as someone who's always is and always was, blind chance as well? So it just happens there was an all powerful entity that always existed? That sounds more like blind chance than anything. All I'm asking is for you to give details or respond to the links provided with
detailed scientific analysis on why its wrong. You just keep claiming complexity proves design, when it does not.

2. Natural Selection is not blind chance. It is 100% dictated by the environment.

YOU need to make a logical case for "blind chance" causing evolution. Provide the exact mechanisms and give details about which parts of evolution are "blind" chance. Just because you say the catch phrase over and over, it doesn't become true.

And this randomness is a biggie!

But you asked

"Now you tell me which part of that is blind chance events?"

Mutation is random - in other words it's a CHANCE EVENT - like it said in your link - it's a MISTAKE!

A product of unguided process - unless SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY made it happen.

It's like out of a million people expose to the sun - a few will contract a skin disease but Who will? It's unpredictable unless someone goes to a rigorous skin cancer test then one will know who got it.

But of course to evolutionists nothing is impossible - after all we're talking about randomness - chance events.

But let's just say that:

2. Natural Selection is not blind chance. It is 100% dictated by the environment.

If so then what guided Natural Selection? Was it intelligently guiding itself or was it blindly guiding itself - hoping that one day out of a billion times of tryouts one will hit the target?

Or was it just one try - bam life came to be? Was Natural Selection that smart? No?

Oh OK - it selected the fittest of the bunch - I got it - details - details. So "NS" selected the best candidate for life out of what? or from what?

Oh - the environment - now I got it. So the environment is the co-creator of life.

Does this mean then that NS was the brain?

If so where did the environment get the ingredients to form the basic components of life?

From the environment - you mean like star dust?

If so where did the material come from?

See what I'm getting at?

So you see - Natural Selection without someone guiding it is just pure luck - a chance events.

It's not as you say:

2. Natural Selection is not blind chance. It is 100% dictated by the environment.

In Evolution Theory - Natural Selection is 100% CHANCE EVENTS - it's a RANDOM EVENT - because there's no Intelligence behind it. It all depends on chance.

If you don't believe me - answer this simple question:

In the so called "primordial soup" of life how did Natural Selection knew the right combination to form life and most of all HOW LONG did it take for the process to "NATURALLY" occur - if as you say:

It is 100% dictated by the environment

CHANCE EVENTS ANYONE?

Originally posted by edmc^2
In other words these mutations are caused by "ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals".

So all three elements can cause mutations. But to say that "nuclear radiation" also caused evolution by way of mutation is a stretch. But then again to evolutionists anything goes even it's not supported by facts.

Actually its not a stretch at all.

www.commondreams.org...

Where are your facts?

Can you predict when these mistakes will occur, how often and at what rate?

Answer is NO - these mutations are unpredictable unless someone is guiding the event - thus it's all CHANCE EVENTS.

But at what rate?

More philosophy? I don't generalize scientific processes with labels like "chance events". I say exactly what happened and what those events where. Stop side stepping what I have presented to you.

We could go in circles all day about your opinion on what counts as blind chance events if you'd like, but again, by your definition:

Can you predict when god is going to create, how often and at what rate? If the answer is NO, god must just be a CHANCE EVENT!

Genetic mutations are the events. The link I posted explains some of the causes of these events. If you know what the event is and what causes it, it's not a CHANCE EVENT. It's a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

But when mutations occur (and they do happen) the progeny usually is inferior and is short lived.

Source please.

AND this is the REASON why mutation will not work in evolution theory - unless one makes an assumption that ALL known facts about the checks and balances within the cell are ignored and violated - none existent.

I'm having a difficult time understanding what you are saying here. What "checks and balances" are we talking about and how are they ignored / violated? Provide links and data to back that up. You can't just make outrageous claims without some kind of evidence.

You believe that "Natural Selection" was the prime mover of evolution theory.

But how likely will this happen in the real world - highly unlikely unless like I said you're a believer of evolution theory.

Ummm, it's VERY LIKELY to happen in the real world because it IS happening constantly, even as I type this right now. Organisms with the favored traits are favored to survive. That isn't a guess by a long shot.

Now the fact is the CELL was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED as evidence by the checks and balances in the cell. There's no other logical explanation to arrive at unless you believe that evolution theory was also responsible for coming up with these complex and intricate checks and balances.

What intricate checks and balances? Stop using terminology that has nothing at all to do with science or the cell. You are not talking about the specifics, only using absurd generalizing labels. It has been explained several times why the video you posted is wrong. Please give me a link or something to read about the checks and balances within a cell and how it applies. Enough with the strawmans already.

Where did GOD come from?

Did Blind chance events come up with the instructions or was he purposely designed?

What do the facts show?

How could anything organize such intricate and very complex processes to make god?

Did god need to create himself before creating everything else?

What do creationists believe? Was it god came about by BLIND CHANCE EVENT, luck and accident as the source of god?

To think that god came about by BLIND CHANCE EVENT staggers the mind and only one who is close minded will accept that a being as complex and amazing as that created himself without any author - all by CHANCE EVENTS!

Do you see how silly that sounds? I was expecting facts and data, but all I'm getting is philosophical arguments that are mostly wrong or used out of context.

Originally posted by awebber24
that was a good watch... so my theory would be life was created by an extremely complex being made up of non cellular origins?

edit on 26-12-2011 by awebber24 because: (no reason given)

Your correct awebber. in other words he is a spirit being - made of invisible stuff.

In fact the scripture mentions that he dwells beyond the physical universe.

Notice the following scriptures:

(John 4:24) God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

(1 Corinthians 15:40) And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.


(2 Chronicles 6:39) you must also hear from the heavens, from your established place of dwelling, their prayer and their requests for favor, and you must execute judgment for them and forgive your people who have sinned against you.

(2 Chronicles 6:18) “But will God truly dwell with mankind upon the earth? Look! Heaven, yes, the heaven of the heavens themselves, cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built?

reply to post by Barcs

More philosophy? I don't generalize scientific processes with labels like "chance events". I say exactly what happened and what those events where. Stop side stepping what I have presented to you. We could go in circles all day about your opinion on what counts as blind chance events if you'd like, but again, by your definition: Can you predict when god is going to create, how often and at what rate? If the answer is NO, god must just be a CHANCE EVENT! Genetic mutations are the events. The link I posted explains some of the causes of these events. If you know what the event is and what causes it, it's not a CHANCE EVENT. It's a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Then tell your fellow evolutionist to stop using CHANCE EVENTS because you say so.

As for God's creative acts - nope they are not random events but purposeful events.

As for mutations - like I said they are random events - ergo chance events.

notice your own website:

Mutations are Random

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation. Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.[

Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.
In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear1.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

So Mutation is the x-factor in evolution, random event -a mistake or accident.

ergo - chance events

As for:

I'm having a difficult time understanding what you are saying here. What "checks and balances" are we talking about and how are they ignored / violated? Provide links and data to back that up. You can't just make outrageous claims without some kind of evidence.

Notice again your link:

the number of mistakes that remain incorporated into the DNA is even lower than this because cells contain special DNA repair proteins that fix many of the mistakes in the DNA that are caused by mutagens. The repair proteins see which nucleotides are paired incorrectly, and then change the wrong base to the right one.

The "repair proteins" are the checks and balances - I'm surprised you didn't know this - well now you know.

additional info here if you're interested

Mutations in an organism's DNA are a part of life. Our genetic code is exposed to a variety of insults that threaten its integrity. But, a rigorous system of checks and balances is in place through the DNA repair machinery. The errors that slip through the cracks may sometimes be associated with disease, but they are also a source of variation that is acted upon by longer-term processes, such as evolution and natural selection.

www.nature.com...

see even your fellow evolutionits knew of it.

As for:

Where did GOD come from?

Simple answer is - just like infinity exist so does God exist.

Just like gravity and radio waves are invisible so God is invisible for he is a Spirit Being.

But his intelligent creative acts proves his existence.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."-- Rom 1:20 (NASB)

reply to post by edmc^2


props to this thread. While in general I'm not a big fan of creationism...I find the facts and evidences supported by your video to be very difficult to refute and in any case; they certainly give the idea of creationism a fighting chance. Although the nail in the coffin for me was the probability calculation. It was an astounding measurement that they presented. I do have one small issue with it however. Who calculated it? I noticed it was referenced in the video but I couldn't really tell what it said. Also how did they calculate that number? What variables did they use? While I found their probability calculation to be an astounding eye opener, it can only be so astounding so long as it's calculation is based on tangible facts and evidence as well.

Let me quote something from the writer of the book from which this documentary was derived from:

Dr. Don Johnson (with earned Ph.D.s in both informational and natural sciences), the founder of Science Integrity, once believed anyone not accepting the "proven" evolutionary scenario that was ingrained during his science education was of the same mentality as someone believing in a flat Earth. With continued scientific investigation, paying closer attention to actual data (rather than speculative conclusions), he began to doubt the natural explanations that had been so ingrained in a number of key areas including the origin and fine-tuning of mass and energy, the origin of life with its complex information content, and the increase in complexity in living organisms. It was science, and not religion, that caused his disbelief in the explanatory powers of undirected nature. The fantastic leaps of faith required to accept the undirected natural causes in these areas demand a scientific response to the scientific-sounding concepts that in fact have no known scientific basis. Scientific integrity needs to be restored so that ideas that have no methods to test or falsify are not considered part of science. Science needs to avoid unsubstantiated speculation based on "science as we don't know it." Speculation is important for investigating whether proposed mechanisms are possible, but great care is needed if those speculations are conveyed outside the scientific community. For example, the argument "we don't yet know how this feature can arise by undirected natural processes, but we will someday" is not a scientific statement. It is faith based on "naturalism of the gaps" dogma, which has no more scientific validity than the "God of the gaps" theology as an explanation for currently unexplainable complexity.

Source

reply to post by edmc^2


Well, I tried, but you haven't backed up anything or pointed out the specifics of anything I asked.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Checks and balances was used as a metaphor. When you throw it out there and say a cell has an intricate system of checks and balances you are being intentionally deceptive. Cells have proteins that perform a function that helps its survival. I love when you post evidence of evolution when actually intending to ignore it. I guess it makes perfect sense that you interpret the bible literally, and would also interpret checks and balances literally and use it as a catch phrase to imply its a complex system.

I'll be stepping out of this thread because my main purpose is to learn and acquire knowledge. I'm legitimately interested in the topic, but when you fail to provide some reading material, links or back anything up, it becomes quite boring. Your personal opinion is one thing, but claiming proof is completely different. Good luck, maybe some blind chance events will go your way and you will gain some followers.

reply to post by edmc^2


This is getting really silly...

Now thanks to your link in addition to BLIND CHANCE EVENTS as the prime mover of evolution we can also add MISTAKE as another mover to the evolution theory.

It's not blind chance for crying out loud

Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

Nothing of the above suggests blind chance. It's all based on natural processes...physics, chemistry, and biology.

Can you predict when these mistakes will occur, how often and at what rate?

Answer is NO - these mutations are unpredictable unless someone is guiding the event - thus it's all CHANCE EVENTS.

Just because we can't predict them 100% accurately in all cases (in a lot of cases we can by the way, like when we develop medicine using the theory) doesn't mean it's "blind chance". 100 years ago people had issues predicting the weather...today we can do so pretty accurately.

So no, blind chance is a pretty bad argument

That's the reason why we don't see many MUTANTS. But when mutations occur (and they do happen) the progeny usually is inferior and is short lived.

AND this is the REASON why mutation will not work in evolution theory - unless one makes an assumption that ALL known facts about the checks and balances within the cell are ignored and violated - none existent.

Not all mutations affect survivability to the extent where it results in a life/death scenario. And we do know for a fact mutations happen. The HIV virus for example is constantly mutating.

But hey, let's just ignore facts...right?

Now the fact is the CELL was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED as evidence by the checks and balances in the cell. There's no other logical explanation to arrive at unless you believe that evolution theory was also responsible for coming up with these complex and intricate checks and balances.

Nothing you posted would prove a cell to be intelligently designed. In fact, everything we do know about cells can be explained perfectly through natural forces. And of course there's stuff we don't fully understand yet because the objective evidence is either inconclusive or simply non-existent.

What you're doing is a PRIME EXAMPLE of GOD OF THE GAPS. You are filling a gap in knowledge with pure magic and fairy tales.

But yeah, continue with that laughable "blind chance" nonsense if you want...but it's a really silly argument

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Well, I tried, but you haven't backed up anything or pointed out the specifics of anything I asked.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Checks and balances was used as a metaphor. When you throw it out there and say a cell has an intricate system of checks and balances you are being intentionally deceptive. Cells have proteins that perform a function that helps its survival. I love when you post evidence of evolution when actually intending to ignore it. I guess it makes perfect sense that you interpret the bible literally, and would also interpret checks and balances literally and use it as a catch phrase to imply its a complex system.

I'll be stepping out of this thread because my main purpose is to learn and acquire knowledge. I'm legitimately interested in the topic, but when you fail to provide some reading material, links or back anything up, it becomes quite boring. Your personal opinion is one thing, but claiming proof is completely different. Good luck, maybe some blind chance events will go your way and you will gain some followers.

Blind luck that you don't even believe your own websites telling you that there are "checks and balances" within the cell.

Here's again is one your websites - I'll even underline the SPECIFIC words for you so that you won't missed them.

Mutations in an organism's DNA are a part of life. Our genetic code is exposed to a variety of insults that threaten its integrity. But, a rigorous system of checks and balances is in place through the DNA repair machinery. The errors that slip through the cracks may sometimes be associated with disease, but they are also a source of variation that is acted upon by longer-term processes, such as evolution and natural selection.

www.nature.com...

Your other website refer to these "checks and balances" as "repair proteins"

Here's your very own posted website - I'll even underline the SPECIFIC words for you so that you won't missed them.

the number of mistakes that remain incorporated into the DNA is even lower than this because cells contain special DNA repair proteins that fix many of the mistakes in the DNA that are caused by mutagens. The repair proteins see which nucleotides are paired incorrectly, and then change the wrong base to the right one.

But I think you're ignoring your own websites because they prove that you haven't have any slightest idea of what evolution theory is all about.

Failed by your own websites.

Oh well...good luck to your endeavor.

reply to post by MrXYZ




Don't forget CHANCE EVENT

But if you say:

It's not blind chance for crying out loud

But why are running away from such words - why the fear if such well recognized evolutionist / atheist like Mr. PZ Myers et al readily accept and proclaim it?

Why the cop-out?

I use "chance" intentionally. A lot of evolution is simple chance accumulation of random scraps of garbage and errors! We shouldn't run away from the word, but should embrace it. -- PZ Myers

richarddawkins.net...

BTW - fyi in case you don't know - abiogenesis is evolution.

Origin of life Category:

Evolution Posted on: July 5, 2008 12:46 PM, by PZ Myers

Nick Matzke has a fine summary of progress in research into abiogenesis. He chastises those people who try to argue that abiogenesis is independent of evolution, or that you can get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution. It is! I've said it myself, and I really wish people would stop trying weasel out of that question by punting it off to some other discipline.

scienceblogs.com...

Life is chemistry Category: Evolution •

Science Posted on: January 27, 2006 11:46 AM, by PZ Myers

Sometimes creationists say things like, "Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life!" The common reply is that that's the domain of abiogenesis, not evolution, with the implied suggestion that the creationist should go away and quit bugging us.

That's a cop-out.

I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.

scienceblogs.com...

continuing...

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

richarddawkins.net...

From the Noble Laureate Dr. Monod:

We call these events accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendious edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. -- Monod, J. (1971) CHANCE AND NECESSITY, A. Wainhouse (translator), Vintage Books, New York NY USA

Chance Restored

I've tried to summarize all of the random and accidental things that can happen during evolution. Mutations are chance events. Random genetic drift is, of course, random. Accidents and contingency abound in the history of life. All this means that the tape of life will never replay the same way. Chance events affect speciation. All these things seem obvious. So, what's the problem? -- evolutionist Laurence A. Moran

bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
www.talkorigins.org...

On the other hand - all the intricate inner-workings of the DNA structure and the programming of the DNA code has all the evidence of an intelligently organized design - a purposeful design of an Intelligent Designer and Creator - God.

Of course to evolutionist all it took was BLIND CHANCE.

So are you still in disagreement with your superiors - the great minds of evolution theory?

Like what Mr. PZ Myers said:

stop trying [to] weasel out of that question..

reply to post by GrimReaper86


Thanks Grim.

Unfortunately - we need volumes of encyclopedias to describe it in detail so a summary will not suffice but I'll give it a shot.

A simple breakdown of the DNA components will give you an idea how staggering the probability numbers truly are!

Remember researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together.

They are:

1) DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid),
2) RNA (ribonucleic acid), and
3) Proteins.

Breaking this down further you will see the big picture:

The DNA molecule:

Researchers say that myriads of chemical reactions is needed to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life.

Going back to the video you will notice its many intricate parts - each with its own preprogramed functions. If one of these parts missed its "duty" the DNA structure will break down.

The DNA molecule is composed of and constructed as follows:

1) The "skin" or membrane.
2) Inside the membrane are 46 chromosomes - arranged in identical pairs - in different size.
3) Each of the 45 chromosomes has a pinched place near the middle - like a sausage in x form.
4) At the (four) ends of each of the 46 chromosomes are like varieties of "bands" running across it.
5) Looking closer at each of the bands we see that it's divided by vertical lines.
6) On these vertical lines are two shorter horizontal lines pack tightly in columns.
7) Next, pulling one these columns will reveal that it's in a loop - composed of smaller coils - intricately organized and arranged.
8) Then picking one of these coils reveal the MAIN feature of the chromosomes.

The chromosome is about an inch (2.6cm) thick - looped tightly around spools which help to form the coils within coils. Then the coils are attached to a kind of scaffold that holds them in place - which when uncoiled end to end would stretch about halfway around the earth. Amazingly compact!

9) Looking at the chromosome closer - it has two strands twisted around each other. The strands are connected by tiny bars, evenly spaced.

10) Finally, the strand looks like a ladder that has been twisted until it resembles a spiral staircase - this IS the DNA molecule—one of the great mysteries of life!

Neatly packaged with its spools and scaffold, makes up a chromosome. The rungs of the ladder are known as base pairs.

A closer look - the DNA has a four-letter code. The order in which those letters—A, T, G, and C—appear forms “words” called codons. Codons are arranged in “stories” called genes. Each gene contains, on average, 27,000 letters. These genes and the long stretches between them are compiled into chapters of a sort—the individual chromosomes. It takes 23 chromosomes to form the complete “book”—the genome, or total of genetic information about an organism.

And its been said, the human genome is made up of about three billion base pairs, or rungs, on the DNA ladder.

In turn the genome would fill 428 of such volumes. Adding the second copy that is found in each cell would make that 856 volumes.

Each of these code is carried out throughout the human body - containing 100+ trillions of cells.

Each pair precisely matched and organized!

There's more to say (about 90% more) and I'm running out of characters so I'll stop here.

Besides we haven't even considered the RNA molecule and Proteins yet.

Now what is the probability that what we just considered will happen by undirected, unguided chance - or as others believe by unguided natural selection?

Then we can add these question - which came first - the RNA or the Protein?
If RNA then how could it be since it needs protein in order to exist?
If the Protein then how could it be since it needs RNA in order to exist?
Both - which one formed what?

And most of where did the INFORMATION came from?
Which came first the code or the raw material?
Were they randomly organized?

It said that the universe is c13 trillion years old - will there be enuff time to bring about life in such fashion as the DNA molecule?

Remember this is just one DNA molecule we're talking about. Think of the 100+ trillion cells.

more info here:www.ornl.gov...
www.ornl.gov...

So you can see evolution theory can't provide a satisfactory answer to these questions but Creation does - because they were purposefully designed by an All wise creator.

Next time the RNA

Note:

Creation or Biblical Creation (or at least as we understand it) defer with Creationism or ID in that it agrees with known scientific facts and believes that God (Jehovah) is the Intelligent Creator.

Creationism on the other hand believes that the earth is around 6K years old (some say 10Kyo) not around 4byo while ID believes in an Intelligent Design but without an Intelligent Designer (God)

reply to post by edmc^2

But why are running away from such words - why the fear if such well recognized evolutionist / atheist like Mr. PZ Myers et al readily accept and proclaim it?

Myers is using "chance" as in "we can't really explain everything in great enough detail (yet)". For example, there's some mutations or features that serve no apparent reason and we don't really know why they're still here. As science advances, it slowly uncovers things. Human still have hair for example, and not even a lot less than monkeys for example. It's just that those hairs are a lot thinner and shorter. You cold argue our hair serves no purpose, and science for years figured it's a remnant of our evolution. Turns out, those hairs still serve a purpose, and it's not pure chance we still have them: LINK

As I already explained, "chance" is merely an expression of "we don't understand". People attributed the weather to "chance" or "god" before they understood it. Myers does the same...

BTW - fyi in case you don't know - abiogenesis is evolution.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

abiogenesis [ˌeɪbaɪəʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Also called autogenesis the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) another name for spontaneous generation Compare biogenesis

The very definition makes it clear what nonsense your claim is. The theory of evolution makes ZERO claims regarding how life started, whereas abiogenesis ONLY talks about that.

You seem to like PZ Myers though...I'm sure you also enjoy his funny jokes about intelligent design

It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.

That's his whole point, that evolution follows abiogenesis (which makes sense given that the existence of life is required for evolution to happen) in a NATURAL PROCESS. No magic (aka god) required.

You are simply misquoting him

All your other quotes portray "chance" as "probability"...which of course always plays a role. And since you can't ever pinpoint a certain probability 100% of the time...you can say that "chance" is involved...as in "probability plays a role". Not sure what your point is though, as all of those guys still state NATURAL PROCESSES are responsible for the outcomes. No magic required or proven

On the other hand - all the intricate inner-workings of the DNA structure and the programming of the DNA code has all the evidence of an intelligently organized design - a purposeful design of an Intelligent Designer and Creator - God.

No...that's your OPINION. You haven't proven anything at all

Even the guys you quoted say it's the result of natural processes. Continue wishing for your fairytale fantasyland all you want, but pretending you have proven anything is disingenuous.

So are you still in disagreement with your superiors - the great minds of evolution theory?

Not in disagreement with them, only in disagreement about how you misinterpret their quotes

reply to post by MrXYZ

"chance" is merely an expression of "we don't understand".

still trying to distance yourself from the word eh? Admit it man - CHANCE EVENTS is the prime mover of evolution theory.

Substituting the word "CHANCE" with an 'expression of "we don't understand"' - is a just cop-out.

I guess you have no choice but to try to "weasel" out of if by redefining what your fellow evolutionits said because it puts you in an awkward position - trying to defend the indefensible.

"chance" is merely an expression of "we don't understand"

wowie zowwie - so you don't understand how the cell came to be? - is that what you're sayin?

N i thought we're talking science.

The fact that we come to know the inner workings of the Cell gives us a better understanding that such complex system - that such system requires intelligence and meticulous organizing.

To say that "we don't understand" is a cop-out - plain n simple.

So I guess the answer to my questions as far as evolutionists are concern is - everyone let's all say it - "WE DON'T UNDERSTAND".

That is - what is the probability that what we've just considered (the cell) will happen by undirected, unguided chance - or as others believe by unguided natural selection?

Then we can add these question - which came first - the RNA or the Protein?
If RNA then how could it be since it needs protein in order to exist?
If the Protein then how could it be since it needs RNA in order to exist?
Both - which one formed what?

And most of where did the INFORMATION came from?
Which came first the code or the raw material?
Were they randomly organized?

Answer - "WE DON'T UNDERSTAND".

What a way to present evolution theory.

As for:

People attributed the weather to "chance" or "god" before they understood it. Myers does the same...

So you're saying Mr. Myers had no idea what he's really talking about?

Yet his followers agree with him - praised him even for saying that "CHANCE" plays a big role in evolution. I guess this the case of the "blind leading the blind" - or the "dumb leading the dumb" because

People [who] attributed the weather to "chance" or "god" before they understood it.

just plain didn't understand it - like the flat earth believers.

Of course you're not saying that Myers is still in the middle ages - are you?

Yet after all the twisting and redefining of the word "CHANCE" as "WE DON'T UNDERSTAND" - you finally came to the conclusion that -

NATURAL PROCESSES are responsible for the outcomes.

.

So which one is it then? NATURAL PROCESSES or "WE DON'T UNDERSTAND" or CHANCE is responsible for the "evolution" or dare I say creation of life?


In the end it's you who was interpreting what you're fellow evolutionits said - not me.

"chance" is merely an expression of "we don't understand"

reply to post by edmc^2

The universe is a giant game of cause and effect. Do you consider all cause and effect relationships to be blind chance events? Or are they specific forms of energy and universal forces interacting with one another? Where would you draw the line between what is blind chance and what is not? Anything in the universe could be considered a chance event because everything is moving all over the place. It's chaos. Humans are curious creatures and have been trying to figure out for the longest time what was the initial cause. Due to cosmic censorship we cannot study and observe anything prior what we know as the big bang. There are quite a few hypotheses about it, including a creator, but there's nothing definitive. That's where faith comes in, because we legitimately do not know the answer. Some people think they do, but again it's merely their guess or interpretation of the unknown.

Now let me ask you this:

If you can say god is eternal, why can't you say the universe is eternal?

Is god not more complex than a cell? I'd think he'd have to be in order to create one from scratch.

If the answer is yes, then god, by your very definition of intelligence in complexity must need a designer. There is no other way, unless your premise is wrong. What say you? Try to focus on my argument and respond with counter points I believe in you, hence I am still here.

reply to post by Barcs

The universe is a giant game of cause and effect. Do you consider all cause and effect relationships to be blind chance events? Or are they specific forms of energy and universal forces interacting with one another?

Nope - it's NOT a "giant game of cause and effect" but an intricate balance of CAUSE and EFFECT. That is, what happens in one galaxy has a ripple effect on the nearest galaxies. A super Nova exploding will have some effect on the surrounding galaxies. But the effects of this cause are not detrimental to us because they follow a certain law that govern the entire universe.

Hence the presence of such laws or "statutes of the heavens" will confirm they they are NOT governed by Blind Chance Events.

Take the stars for example - there are different types of stars according to their size and intensity. The father the star the greater the size and intensity. It's the laws in the universe that determine their existence.

www.universetoday.com...

Where would you draw the line between what is blind chance and what is not? Anything in the universe could be considered a chance event because everything is moving all over the place. It's chaos.

Simple. When there's no meaningful information or data then we can conclude that CHANCE EVENT was responsible for its existence. A drift wood is a good example of this Blind Chance. If we see a pile of driftwood along a beach what's the correct conclusion? The sea waves brought them there by blind chance or by sheer intelligence? Of course it was brought there by the waves through blind chance because there was NO intelligent organization. It so happen that there were driftwood that fell from the mountains in the opposite shore and the wind was blowing northward. Thus it carried all the driftwood and piled them up in the lower sea shore. Sure there's data in the pile of driftwood but is it a meaningful data? Of course not. But if you see drift woods standing and perfectly aligned vertically next to each other as a wall - then we know that someone with intelligence made it happen.
We know this for sure because the waves are not capable of such feat no matter how long it will take. Also the data gathered from analyzing the driftwood wall shows intelligent organization.

And the Universe is such - it's a Highly Fine Tuned System.

Governed by the following laws:

1) ELECTROMAGNETISM
2) STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
3) GRAVITY
4) WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE

If one of these forces is weaker or stronger than the other or non-existent the Universe will be in as you say CHAOS.

Take for example Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion. All Planets abide by this simple rule.
It says:

In astronomy, Kepler's laws give a description of the motion of planets around the Sun. Kepler's laws are:

1) The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
2) A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.[1]
3) The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

link

Thus If a = distance in a.u., P = orbital Period then a^3 = P^2.

Now let's apply this equation to the third Planet orbiting the sun, the planet EARTH.

The Earth is 92.95 million miles (mean) from the Sun. This distance is known as an 'astronomical unit' (a.u.). This is equivalent to 1 a.u.

The Earth orbits the Sun in 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds. This is equivalent to ONE year (P).

Thus for Earth a^3=P^2 → becomes → 1^3 = 1^2. This is the standard for measuring the rest.

From this standard we can accurately and confidently say then that any two planets follow the same ratio, and all the planets follow the same Mathematical Law.

Do you agree? If no then consider the following:

The planet Mercury

a = 0.3871 a.u. while P = 0.24 year (87.97 days)
a^3 = 0.3871^3 = 0.05.
P^2 = 0.24 ^2 = 0.05

Thus for Mercury: a^3 = P^2 = 0.05.

Use the same formula with the rest of the planets and you will see that they follow the same rule.

So the planets and the universe are governed by universal laws NOT CHAOS.

Here's another reason why the universe was Intelligently Created using the highest mathematical calculations known to man.

Was it by accident, sheer blind chance or by design that the Planet Earth or for that matter the Milky Way Galaxy was located in such a prominent area in the Universe?

I can show more proof but I'll stop here and address the rest of your post later.

Bottom line to all of these including the DNA molecule is the question:

How did they came to be?

Blind Chance or by Purposeful Design

Based on the evidence so far the later IS the logical answer.

Question is - Who?

U know my Ans.