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

Originally posted by HappyBunny

What about the Cambrian Explosion?

It was a period where an enormous amout of genetic information appeared arcross multiple life forms, not just one line branching into another. And not just the enormous amount of genetic information for one creature but potentialy 100's

Practically all the phyla appeared together. Yes over maybe ten million years. A mere blink of geological time.

Check the rates of mutations, work out how many new genes might be required for the vast array of body types and new organs. I'll think you'll find it's quite a bit of time. Despite the simultaneos arrival and all that.

This was darwins big problem, and infact it has only got worse. He hoped the intermediates would eventually appear.

This one is very recent.

Ever since Darwin there has been a disturbing void, both paleontological and psychological, at the base of the Phanerozoic eon. If his theory of gradualistic evolution be true, then surely the pre-Phanerozoic oceans must have swarmed with living animals -- despite their conspicuous absence from the early fossil record.

(N. J. Butterfield, "Terminal Developments in Ediacaran Embryology," Science, Vol. 334:1655-1656 (December 23, 2011).)

Guess what? those embryos they were not embryos at all.

Professor Philip Donoghue said: "We were very surprised by our results -- we've been convinced for so long that these fossils represented the embryos of the earliest animals -- much of what has been written about the fossils for the last ten years is flat wrong. Our colleagues are not going to like the result."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Here goes the slush thingy. Can't use that old one anymore.

Wherever the Doushantuo fossils eventually end up, it will clearly not be within "crown-group" Metazoa. Does this then mean there were no early Ediacaran animals? Not at all. No fossil assemblage, however well preserved, provides a full account of past diversity, particularly when the local conditions are so extraordinary as to fossilize nuclei and other intracellular constituents. The "exceptional" fossil record is, by any measure, woefully unrepresentative and incomplete.

(N. J. Butterfield, "Terminal Developments in Ediacaran Embryology," Science, Vol. 334:1655-1656 (December 23, 2011). )

No I'm afraid it's still very much a dillema.

Here's another vey recent discovery.

The very first eye was even more complicated than most of the compound insect and arthropod eyes that exist today!

It is possible that the eyes of Anomalocaris had even more than 16,000 lenses -- the fossils are detailed, but they are not perfect. In fossil form, the stalked eyes are flattened, like pancakes. But Paterson speculates that the eyes of a living anomalocaridid would have been bulbous, and that if non-flattened eyes were to be found, many more lenses would be discovered on the other side.

www.nature.com...

Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this," says Paterson. Houseflies, for instance, have a mere 3000 lenses. The only comparable species are some predatory dragonflies that have up to 28,000 lenses in each eye.

www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by Brasov
By direct application of Evolution's mutation and selection, computers write music today using random genetic algorithms.

Exactly! programmed by intelligence.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Brasov
By direct application of Evolution's mutation and selection, computers write music today using random genetic algorithms.

Exactly! programmed by intelligence.

Wrong, what man is doing is simply copying an algorithm from Nature. If you copy a stone does it mean stones are intelligent?

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Brasov
By direct application of Evolution's mutation and selection, computers write music today using random genetic algorithms.

Exactly! programmed by intelligence.

By saying "programmed by intelligence" - who is the programmer?

reply to post by edmc^2


So you really think that evolution doesn't exist??? Or is just that life was created, which I don't think anyone can deny. Life is created all the time, every day, nothing new and exciting there

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So you really think that evolution doesn't exist??? Or is just that life was created, which I don't think anyone can deny. Life is created all the time, every day, nothing new and exciting there

If this is the "evolution theory" you're talking about - facts do not support it - therefore NO.

That is:

In the beginning the earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. Then a variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless in the "ocean of life".

Then amazingly by sheer chance or accident a "particularly remarkable molecule was formed" — a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself - the first replicator.

Then similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly amazingly improbable accident/chance, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. And finally Life emerge!

Then started evolving into different species by way of mutation / reproduction / natural selection.

Branched off into different phylos. Some became plants, some became animals, some became insects, etc. And from these phylo (Phylogeny) - "tree of life" - evolved the ancestor of man the great apes and monkeys - one of which to eventually become the modern man - homo-sapiens.

If this is the evolution you have in mind - then NO.

Sounds like, looks like walks a science fiction, yes? - how about you?

On the other hand Creation simply states that:

(Genesis 1:1) "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The superb design and sheer intelligence present in all Living Things - testify to the fact that they are Intelligently Designed and Created by God - Jehovah God that is!

"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)

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by HappyBunny

What about the Cambrian Explosion?

It was a period where an enormous amout of genetic information appeared arcross multiple life forms, not just one line branching into another. And not just the enormous amount of genetic information for one creature but potentialy 100's

Practically all the phyla appeared together. Yes over maybe ten million years. A mere blink of geological time.

You guys make it sound like it happened overnight. We split off from the chimps only 5 million years ago.

Check the rates of mutations, work out how many new genes might be required for the vast array of body types and new organs. I'll think you'll find it's quite a bit of time. Despite the simultaneos arrival and all that.

I think I already made it clear that those organisms most likely existed already, but the biggest difference was in size.

This was darwins big problem, and infact it has only got worse. He hoped the intermediates would eventually appear.

This one is very recent.

It was 600 million years ago, and you say it's recent? Seriously?

There's no such thing as a missing link or an intermediate.

Ever since Darwin there has been a disturbing void, both paleontological and psychological, at the base of the Phanerozoic eon. If his theory of gradualistic evolution be true, then surely the pre-Phanerozoic oceans must have swarmed with living animals -- despite their conspicuous absence from the early fossil record.

(N. J. Butterfield, "Terminal Developments in Ediacaran Embryology," Science, Vol. 334:1655-1656 (December 23, 2011).)

Guess what? those embryos they were not embryos at all.

What is the point of that quote? In another paper, Butterfield says that the Sirius Passet and Chengiang fossils--very early Cambrian, were misidentified and are in fact arthropods. Morris screwed up when he went through the Burgess Shale fossils. He kept identifying all these new phyla, but in fact the vast majority of the fossils fit into existing phyla which is just where Walcott had them in the first place.

Look up Reginald Sprigg.

icb.oxfordjournals.org...

Professor Philip Donoghue said: "We were very surprised by our results -- we've been convinced for so long that these fossils represented the embryos of the earliest animals -- much of what has been written about the fossils for the last ten years is flat wrong. Our colleagues are not going to like the result."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Again, so? They were wrong. They're only human, after all. And that is how science advances. Or do you expect them to be perfect from the get go? It doesn't disprove evolution.

Here goes the slush thingy. Can't use that old one anymore.

Wherever the Doushantuo fossils eventually end up, it will clearly not be within "crown-group" Metazoa. Does this then mean there were no early Ediacaran animals? Not at all. No fossil assemblage, however well preserved, provides a full account of past diversity, particularly when the local conditions are so extraordinary as to fossilize nuclei and other intracellular constituents. The "exceptional" fossil record is, by any measure, woefully unrepresentative and incomplete.

You just proved my point. They're saying that yes, there were Ediacaran animals, so I'm not quite sure what your issue is. Sounds to me that you have no idea when the Slush Thingy was.

We may never get a full account of past diversity. We don't even know how many species are on Earth at this very moment, for heaven's sakes.

If I were you, I'd put more energy into trying to prove that life required a designer instead of trying to hold science to a higher standard than you set for your own hypothesis.

Here's another vey recent discovery.

The very first eye was even more complicated than most of the compound insect and arthropod eyes that exist today!

It is possible that the eyes of Anomalocaris had even more than 16,000 lenses -- the fossils are detailed, but they are not perfect. In fossil form, the stalked eyes are flattened, like pancakes. But Paterson speculates that the eyes of a living anomalocaridid would have been bulbous, and that if non-flattened eyes were to be found, many more lenses would be discovered on the other side.

www.nature.com...

Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this," says Paterson. Houseflies, for instance, have a mere 3000 lenses. The only comparable species are some predatory dragonflies that have up to 28,000 lenses in each eye.

www.newscientist.com...

So what? Who says there's a lower limit on the number of eyes a species can have? There's no rule that says a creature has to become more complex with time.

edit on 1/11/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Brasov
Wrong, what man is doing is simply copying an algorithm from Nature. If you copy a stone does it mean stones are intelligent?

I used pretty much the same concept to establish my own point of view with the fractal formula. I don’t see the problem.

You've missed several points. For one he starts with biological functionally specified information right at the very beginning with the genetic algorithm. So we've just simply jumped over the very thing we are considering straight away. This is not the type of information that is in a stone or a snowflake for that matter.

The information requires machines in this case it is the computer. Go back and read the abstract from a thermodynamics point of view.

Secondly the program is goal oriented to produce functional music. It is directed by ( depending on the natural selection criteria) whether it is chosen by the user by preference, quite obviously intelligence, or by the finely tuned parameters entailed in the defined natural forces. This is exactly what ID actually proposes.

And when the programme stops running the genetic algorithm has not changed, it has not evolved more lines of code. The original bio signal can produce a plethora of variety. I think that is already a give in.

ID is multidisciplinary it also involves computer scientists, information scientist, mathematicians. DO you think they have not considered these things? It's what they do.

There are other evolutionary simulations like EV and scribe etc... These have been closely analysed and demonstrated when and where the information is added and how the outcome was predefined from the start. If you like we can look at some of the published papers discussing this aspect.

There are simulations that also show the how highly unlikely mechanism of Darwinian evolution is. We could look at those too. I reemphasize the protein folding problem. You don't even need a computer for that one. You can do it in your head.

Actually I think evolutionary music is a very good analogy for my argument in a very fundamental way, which is all it can ever do. So Thanks

But simulations can only reveal a fragment of the big picture; we can use them as a tool. But it all gets down to the information that gets put in and even more so the information that gets left out. It will always be garbage in garbage out unless you account for everything.

There’s no negative epitasis going on, there’s no drag from the interaction of multiple so called beneficial mutations and no specializing and narrowing of the original algorithm.

reply to post by squiz

modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.3 Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes.

www.answersingenesis.org...

It always amazes me that the simplest living organism is made up of so many things.

Just for a fun grab a 100 gallon jug of amino acids, proteins and anything else needed to make up the simplest know organism , throw them up mix them around do whatever you like to them. Will they ever land in the exact formation of even the simplest living organism?

Let’s just say they do. What would make them live? And if they were to start living what would make them reproduce? If they did reproduce what would make them become more complex?

The argument for evolution simply cannot answer any of those questions. Which leaves you with only 2 choices intelligent design or creation.

No one who is intelligent and honest can answer those questions with any answer that does not include God. Because I don't know is not an intelligent answer.

P.S. Scientist have been trying this since before Darwin and have proven that it just doesn't happen no matter how much they pray it will.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
You guys make it sound like it happened overnight. We split off from the chimps only 5 million years ago.

When looking back that far in time our window of accuracy is in the millions of years, for all we know it could have happened over night. I don't know what the rest of you comment is relevant to.

I think I already made it clear that those organisms most likely existed already, but the biggest difference was in size.

I think I made it clear that isn’t true with the recent discovery and overturning of a long held assumption. The embryos in this case were not multi cellular organisms. They were perfectly preserved nuclei and all. Meaning if they can be preserved we should be able to find the thousands and thousands and thousands of transitional forms from a multitude of designs. But alas they don’t exist!

What was that comment?

much of what has been written about the fossils for the last ten years is flat wrong. Our colleagues are not going to like the result."

Also meaning that the links you post are outdated and flat out wrong.

This one is very recent.

It was 600 million years ago, and you say it's recent? Seriously?

Not the Cambrian, the discovery and research! Sheesh

There's no such thing as a missing link or an intermediate.

Then you better contact those Cambrian palaeontologist and tell them where you’ve been hiding them.

What is the point of that quote? In another paper, Butterfield says that the Sirius Passet and Chengiang fossils--very early Cambrian, were misidentified and are in fact arthropods. Morris screwed up when he went through the Burgess Shale fossils. He kept identifying all these new phyla, but in fact the vast majority of the fossils fit into existing phyla which is just where Walcott had them in the first place.

The point is that there were no precambrain transitional observed in Darwins time (Darwin dilemma). And there are none observed today.

The rest of your comment there is regarding events during the cambrian not before. It has no relevance.

Wherever the Doushantuo fossils eventually end up, it will clearly not be within "crown-group" Metazoa. Does this then mean there were no early Ediacaran animals? Not at all. No fossil assemblage, however well preserved, provides a full account of past diversity, particularly when the local conditions are so extraordinary as to fossilize nuclei and other intracellular constituents. The "exceptional" fossil record is, by any measure, woefully unrepresentative and incomplete.

You just proved my point. They're saying that yes, there were Ediacaran animals, so I'm not quite sure what your issue is. Sounds to me that you have no idea when the Slush Thingy was.

Wow, how do you come to that conclusion after reading that? “NO FOSSIL ASSEMBLAGE, HOWEVER WELL PRESERVED, PROVIDES A FULL ACCOUNT OF PAST DIVERSITY.”

I didn’t say there were none. The article is saying there are no records of Cambrian transitional. The excuse that they were soft bodied can no longer be used. There should be thousands of them.

If I were you, I'd put more energy into trying to prove that life required a designer instead of trying to hold science to a higher standard than you set for your own hypothesis.

Well isn’t that hypocritical, oh leave poor science alone! Stop debunking our fairy tale with science. That’s our turf don’t you know!

So what? Who says there's a lower limit on the number of eyes a species can have? There's no rule that says a creature has to become more complex with time.

Really? Small gradual steps to complexity, hmmm… Where have I heard that before?

In the last couple of months we can see that all the dressing and "just so" stories applied to the cambrain has just been swept away.

That's the last nonsense post I'm going respond too, I'll only respond to logical critical thought or scientific research presented in a civil manner. I don't have time to answer every rediculous misinterpretation.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Very nice. Too true, there is no such thing as a simple life form.

Originally posted by squiz

You've missed several points. For one he starts with biological functionally specified information right at the very beginning with the genetic algorithm. So we've just simply jumped over the very thing we are considering straight away. This is not the type of information that is in a stone or a snowflake for that matter.

In Nature the information is defined by the relative positions of 4 bases in DNA molecules. These positions are determined by randomnness no "programmer" required.

Originally posted by squiz

The information requires machines in this case it is the computer. Go back and read the abstract from a thermodynamics point of view.

The computer is there to siimulate three natural phenomena: ramdomness in DNA, selection by an environment and copying of DNA.

We also simulate the weather using computers, does this mean the weather couldn' t exist before Von Neumann was born?

Originally posted by squiz

Secondly the program is goal oriented to produce functional music.

That's not true. Genetic algorithms are BLIND and universal, they work on a pool of chromosomes independently of what those chromosomes represent to the programmer. It can be anything imaginable but the algorithm still works the same.

Such is the POWER of EVOLUTION.

Originally posted by squiz

And when the programme stops running the genetic algorithm has not changed, it has not evolved more lines of code.

In Naturee too, the genetic algorithm goes on and on doing exactly the same:

1. Random DNA population,
2. Selection of DNA by the environment,
3. Copying (reproduction) of the fittest DNA.

It's a blind machine, never changing and doing all the time exactly the same. It will blindly adapt the DNA to the selection function (environment) over time. The adaptations are totally unpredictable, that's why life is so varied.

Originally posted by squiz

Very nice. Too true, there is no such thing as a simple life form.

What's your definition of life? To me, life is anything that can reproduce and change to adapt to its environment.

Now here' s a very simple life-form according to this definition that reproduces and evolves:

Artificial molecule evolves in the lab - life - 08 January 2009 - New Scientist

A new molecule that performs the essential func.tion of life - self-replication - could shed light on the origin of all living things. If that wasn't enough, the laboratory-born ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand evolves in a test tube to double itself ever more swiftly.

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

Life-like evolution in a test tube | COSMOS magazine

Originally posted by squiz

Really? Small gradual steps to complexity, hmmm… Where have I heard that before?

In Genetic Algorithm?

It works like a charm at finding complex solutions to problems too large for the human mind. That's how Evolution in Nature works too.

It's a very simple, yet almost omnipotent algorithm. I'd call it the God Algorithm

reply to post by Brasov


What's your answer to Doug Axes work, in particular the folding problem? It seems if you could present a workable model you could falsify his work?

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Brasov

 

What's your answer to Doug Axes work, in particular the folding problem? It seems if you could present a workable model you could falsify his work?

edit on 12-1-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

All complexity-based arguments against Evolution are fallacious.

In the case of proteins the folding is one solution to the equilibrium between the attractive forces of the atoms in the chain IN A GIVEN MEDIUM.

The process of folding begins as the protein is synthesised. This means that at any given moment the unfolded part (the problem) is always very small relative to the folded part (the partly solved problem).

At any given moment the small unsolved folding has a limited amount of solutions (simple problem) given the atoms and the medium.

The complexity in this case is achieved by solving small, simple subproblems sequentially, no need for an imaginary "supervising God".

I'd like to respond becuase it is a particular point that most people don't grasp. I'll see if I can simplify.

In the evolutionary music program, even though we are already supplying information with a synthetic version of a biological code. The information is serving no functions. It is just sounding pretty. No different to a snow flake, it is serving no functional information transfer. Just like a fractal animation it produces beauty but no function.

There is no doubt random mutations happen, There is no doubt natural selection happens, there is no doubt the genome(s) contains a huge amount of variety. There's no doubt natural forces are at work.

But yes Darwinism is a simple search algorithm, a random search. Not just for arrangement but functionality.
This is why the folding problem is so difficult.

Oh, reconsidering I was wrong in refering to the computer as the machine, it is the environment as you said. Specified functional information requires machines to perform functions, there are no machines performing any functions in the simulations.

I just read your other post, There is no solution in that. You have not had enough time to look at his studies.
I cannot debate this with you if you cannot comprehend the problem.
Goodbye.

Originally posted by squiz

But yes Darwinism is a simple search algorithm, a random search. Not just for arrangement but functionality.
This is why the folding problem is so difficult.

The folding problem for the scientist and the problem for the cell are totally different. The scientist ignores the formation sequence of the protein, so he has to work with the whole unfolded molecule. For him it's a search algorithm with zillions of possible solutions.

But this is not the case for the cell.

The protein is manufactured in the cell sequentially, one bit at time. As soon as the first chunk comes out it's immediately folded. The search space at any given step is then very limited. The solution for each small bit is provided immediately by Physics laws as an equilibrium of forces. Each partial folding determines the equilibrium for what's coming out of the production line next.

So the folding problem is solved in the cell incrementally, one step at a time during production, not as a whole on an unfolded protein thread but through a series of meta-stable simpler intermediate states.

This has been proposed by Levinthal. If scientists knew the protein's production sequence they could also readily and incrementally solve the folding problem as efficiently as the cell does.

In short: the folding problem is quickly solved if you know the production sequence of the protein.

reply to post by Brasov


Proof? You can suggest anything you want really it doesn't make it happen.

I couldn't resist.

The folding problem for the scientist and the problem for the cell are totally different. The scientist ignores the formation sequence of the protein, so he has to work with the whole unfolded molecule. For him it's a search algorithm with zillions of possible solutions.

Oh my!

Now that you have read wikipedia go and read Doug axes work. If you had of read wiki properly you would have known proteins are assembled both ways. There are thousands of them. Bad ones usually result in disease or death. Not much room for random error. So your following post is also a crock.

"Levinthal's paradox is a thought experiment" wikipedia.

Ok that's it I promise. I smell troll.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Brasov

 

Proof? You can suggest anything you want really it doesn't make it happen.

Your alternative is that proteins are manufactured at once as an unfolded thread, and then you go further and propose they're folded miraculously... what a crock!

If "instant" manufacturing and folding requires a miracle but sequential manufacturing doesn't, then reality has to be sequential (reductio ad absurdum).

Now here's the proof:

Levinthal paradox

Indeed, the protein folding intermediates and the partially folded transition states were experimentally detected, which explains the fast protein folding.