| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Bulk Cannabis Seeds  APE Liquid Culture For Sale  Bulk Substrate  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Spores for European Microscopy |
| |||||||
 rizingfire Mycoticus psychoticus      Registered: 09/10/07 Posts: 875 Loc: North-east USm'f'nA Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
One of the most important discoveries of the twentieth century was the discovery of the DNA molecule. It has had a powerful effect on biological research. It has also brought quandary and confusion to evolutionist scientists. If they cared to admit the full implications of DNA, it would also bring total destruction to their theory.
This chapter goes hand in hand with the previous one. In that chapter (Primitive Environment), we learned that earthly surroundings—now or earlier—could never permit the formation of living creatures from non-living materials. This present chapter will primarily discuss the DNA code, and the components of protein—and will show that each are so utterly complicated as to defy any possibility that they could have been produced by chance events. Yet random actions are the only kind of occurrences which evolutionists tell us have ever been used to accomplish the work of evolution. The significance of all this is immense. Because of the barrier of the multi-billion DNA code, not only was it impossible for life to form by accident,—it could never thereafter evolve into new and different species! Each successive speciation change would require highly exacting code to be in place on the very first day of its existence as a unique new species. As with a number of other chapters in this book, this one chapter alone is enough to completely annihilate evolutionary theory in regard to the origin or evolution of life. 1 - DNA AND ITS CODE GREGOR MENDEL—(*#1/7 Gregor Mendel’s Monumental Discovery*) It was Mendel’s monumental work with genetics in the mid-19th century that laid the foundation for all modern research work in genetics. The complete story will be found on our website. YOUR BODY’S BLUEPRINT—(*#2 The Story of DNA*) Each of us starts off as a tiny sphere no larger than a dot on this page. Within that microscopic ball there is over six feet of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), all coiled up. Inside that DNA is the entire code for what you will become,—all your organs and all your features. The DNA itself is strung out within long coiling strips. DNA is the carrier of the inheritance code in living things. It is like a microscopic computer with a built-in memory. DNA stores a fantastic number of "blueprints," and at the right time and place issues orders for distant parts of the body to build its cells and structures. You have heard of "genes" and "chromosomes." Inside each cell in your body is a nucleus. Inside that nucleus are, among other complicated things, chromosomes. Inside the chromosomes are genes. The genes are attached to chromosomes like beads on a chain. Inside the genes is the complicated chemical structure we call DNA. Each gene has a thousand or more such DNA units within it. Inside each cell are tens of thousands of such genes, grouped into 23 pairs of chromosomes. Inside the DNA is the total of all the genetic possibilities for a given species. This is called the gene pool of genetic traits. It is also called the genome. That is all the traits your species can have; in contrast, the specific sub-code for YOU is the genotype, which is the code for all the possible inherited features you could have. The genotype is the individual’s code; the genome applies to populations, the entire species. (For clarification, it should be mentioned here that the genotype includes all the features you could possibly have in your body, but what you will actually have is called the phenotype. This is because there are many unexpressed or recessive characters in the genotype that do not show up in the phenotype. For example, you may have had both blue and brown eye color in your genotype from your ancestors, but your irises will normally only show one color.) COILED STRIPS—(*#3/33 The Origin of DNA*) Your own DNA is scattered all through your body in about 100 thousand billion specks, which is the average number of living cells in a human adult. What does this DNA look like? It has the appearance of two intertwined strips of vertical tape that are loosely coiled about each other. From bottom to top, horizontal rungs or stairs reach across from one tape strip to the other. Altogether, each DNA molecule is something like a spiral staircase. The spiraling sides in the DNA ladder are made of complicated sugar and phosphate compounds, and the crosspieces are nitrogen compounds. It is the arrangement of the chemical sequence in the DNA that contains the needed information. The code within each DNA cell is complicated in the extreme! If you were to put all the coded DNA instructions from just ONE single human cell into English, it would fill many large volumes, each volume the size of an unabridged dictionary! DOUBLE-STRANDED HELIX—Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a double-stranded helix found within the chromosomes, which are located inside the nucleus of every living cell. The molecule consists of just four nucleotide units, one containing adenine, one guanine, one cytosine, and one either thymine (in DNA) or uracil (in RNA). The sides of the helix consist of alternating deoxyribose sugars and phosphates. The illustration on page 244 shows the strange shape of DNA. It has that shape because it must fit inside the chromosome. It does this by squashing an immense length into the tiny chromosome. It could not do this if it did not have a twisted shape. The four illustrations show progressively smaller views of a DNA molecule and what is in it. DIVIDING DNA—DNA has a very special way of dividing and combining. The ladder literally "unhooks" and "rehooks." When cells divide, the DNA ladder splits down the middle. There are then two single vertical strands, each with half of the rungs. Both now duplicate themselves instantly—and there are now two complete ladders, where a moment before there was but one! Each new strip has exactly the same sequence that the original strip of DNA had. This process of division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for you to grow from that first cell to a newborn infant. Human cells can divide more than 50 times before dying. When they do die, they are immediately replaced. Every minute 3 billion cells die in your body and are immediately replaced. THE BASE CODE—(*#7 Coding in the Information*) The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion of those DNA ladders. Scientists call each spiral ladder a DNA molecule; they also call them base pairs. It is the sequence of chemicals within these base pairs that provides the instructional code for your body. That instructional code oversees all your heredity and many of your metabolic processes. Without your DNA, you could not live. Without its own DNA, nothing else on earth could live. Within each DNA base pair is a most fantastic information file. A-T-C-T-G-G-G-T-C-T-A-A-T-A, and on and on, is the code for one creature. T-G-C-T-C-A-A-G-A-G-T-G-C-C, and on and on, will begin the code for another. Each code continues on for millions of "letter" units. Each unit is made of a special chemical. The DNA molecule is shaped like a coiled ladder, which the scientists describe as being in the shape of a "double-stranded helix." Using data from a woman researcher (which they did not acknowledge), *Watson and *Crick "discovered" the structure of DNA. UTTER COMPLEXITY—In order to form a protein, the DNA molecule has to direct the placement of amino acids in a certain specific order in a molecule made up of hundreds of thousands of units. For each position, it must choose the correct amino acid from some twenty different amino acids. DNA itself is made up of only four different building blocks (A, G, C, and T). These are arranged in basic code units of three factors per unit (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). This provides 64 basic code units. With them, millions of separate codes can be sequentially constructed. Each code determines one of the many millions of factors in your body, organs, brain, and all their functions. If just one code were omitted, you would be in serious trouble. AN ASTOUNDING CLAIM—The evolutionists applied their theory to the amazing discoveries about DNA—and came up with a totally astonishing claim: All the complicated DNA in each life form, and all the DNA in every other life form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest. Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells; their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies); their cells began making new ones; and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the entire creature must do. That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they, in turn, more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc. And that, according to this children’s story, is where we all came from! But it is a story that only very little children would find believable. "Laboratory experiments show that the basic building blocks of life, the proteins and organic molecules, form pretty easily in environments that have both carbon and water."—*Star Date Radio Broadcast, January 24, 1990. In this chapter, we will not consider most of the above claims. Instead, we will primarily focus on the DNA and protein in each cell within each living creature. TRANSLATION PACKAGE NEEDED AT BEGINNING—The amount of information in the genetic code is so vast that it would be impossible to put together by chance. But, in addition, there must be a means of translating it so the tissues can use the code. "Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."—*C. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science" in American Scientist 59 (1971), pp. 298. Not only did the DNA have to originate itself by random accident, but the translation machinery already had to be produced by accident—and also immediately! Without it, the information in the DNA could not be applied to the tissues. Instant death would be the result. "The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translation machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves encoded in DNA [!]; the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [‘every living thing comes from an egg’]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine."—*J. Monod, Chance and Necessity (1971), p. 143. This translation package has also been termed an "adapter function." Without a translator, the highly complex coding contained within the DNA molecule would be useless to the organism. "The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present."—*H. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," in Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981), p. 13. "Cells and organisms are also informed [intelligently designed and operated] life-support systems. The basic component of any informed system is its plan. Here, argues the creationist, an impenetrable circle excludes the evolutionist. Any attempt to form a model or theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that code is without function unless, and until, it is translated, i.e., unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy components which are themselves the product of the code."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 147 [emphasis his]. DESIGNING CODES—*Sir Arthur Keith, a prominent anatomist of the 1930s (and co-producer of the Piltdown man hoax), said: "We do not believe in the theory of Special Creation because it is incredible." But life itself and all its functions and designs are incredible. And each true species has its own unique designs. A single living cell may contain one hundred thousand million atoms, but each atom will be arranged in a specific order. Yet all this is based on design, and design requires intelligence—in this case an extremely high order of intelligence. Man’s most advanced thinking and planning has produced airplanes, rockets, personal computers, and flight paths around the moon. But none of this was done by accident. Careful thought and structuring was required. Design blueprints were carefully crafted into products. The biological world is packed with intricate, cooperative mechanisms that depend on encoded and detailed instructions for their development and interacting function. But complexity, and the coding it is based on, does not evolve. Left to themselves, all things become more random and disorganized. The more complex the system, the more elaborate the design needed to keep it operating and resisting the ever-pressing tendency to decay and deterioration. DNA and other substances like it are virtually unknown outside living cells. Astoundingly, they produce cells and are products of cells; yet they are not found outside of cells. DNA is exclusively a product of the cell; we cannot manufacture it. The closest we can come to this is to synthesize simple, short chains of mononucleotide RNA—and that is as far as we can go, in spite of all our boasted intelligence and million-dollar well-supplied, well-equipped laboratories. MESSENGER RNA—Special "messenger RNA" molecules are needed. Without them, DNA is useless in the body. Consider the story of s-RNA: "The code in the gene (which is DNA, of course) is used to construct a messenger RNA molecule in which is encoded the message necessary to determine the specific amino acid sequence of the protein. "The cell must synthesize the sub-units (nucleotides) for the RNA (after first synthesizing the sub-units for each nucleotide, which include the individual bases and the ribose). The cell must synthesize the sub-units, or amino acids, which are eventually polymerized to form the protein. Each amino acid must be activated by an enzyme specific for that amino acid. Each amino acid is then combined with another type of RNA, known as soluble RNA or s-RNA. "There is a specific s-RNA for each individual amino acid. There is yet another type of RNA known as ribosomal RNA. Under the influence of the messenger RNA, the ribosomes are assembled into units known as polyribosomes. Under the direction of the message contained in the messenger RNA while it is in contact with polyribosomes, the amino acid-s-RNA complexes are used to form a protein. Other enzymes and key molecules are required for this. "During all of this, the complex energy-producing apparatus of the cell is used to furnish the energy required for the many syntheses."—Duane T. Gish, "DNA: Its History and Potential, "in W.E. Lemmerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 312. THE LIVING COMPUTER—DNA and its related agencies operate dramatically like an advanced computer. "All this is strikingly similar to the situation in the living cell. For discs or tapes substitute DNA; for ‘words’ substitute genes; and for ‘bits’ (a bit is an electronic representation of ‘yes’ or ‘no’) substitute the bases adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine."—*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 106. Everywhere we turn in the cell we find the most highly technical computerization. Electrical polarity is a key in the DNA. This is positive and negative electrical impulses, found both in the DNA and about the cell membrane, cytoplasm, and nucleus. The result is a binary system, similar to what we find in the most advanced computers in the world, but far more sophisticated and miniaturized. In computer science, a "byte" is composed of eight bits and can hold 256 different binary patterns, enough to equal most letters or symbols. A byte therefore stands for a letter or character. In biology the equivalent is three nucleotides called a codon. The biological code (within DNA) is based on these triplet patterns, as *Crick and *Brenner first discovered. This triad is used to decide which amino acid will be used for what purpose. THE BIOLOGICAL COMPILER—The code in both plants and animals is DNA, but DNA is chemically different from the amino acids, which it gives orders to make. This code also decides which of the 20 essential proteins (proteins your body must have to survive) the amino acids will then form themselves into. There is an intermediate substance between DNA and the amino acids and proteins. That mediating substance is t-RNA. But now the complexity gets worse: Each of the 20 essential proteins requires a different intermediate t-RNA! Each one works specifically to perform its one function; and chemically, each t-RNA molecule is unlike each of the other t-RNA molecules. The biological compiler that accomplishes these code tasks is m-RNA. It changes DNA code language into a different language that the cells can understand—so they can set about producing the right amino acids and proteins. Without these many m-DNA molecules, the entire code and what it should produce would break down. DNA INDEXING—Information that is inaccessible is useless, even though it may be very complete. Every computer requires a data bank. Without it, needed information cannot be retrieved and used. Large computer data banks have libraries of disc storage, but they require an index to use them. Without the index, the computer will not know where to look to find the needed information. DNA is a data bank of massive proportions, but indexes are also needed. These are different from the translators. There are non-DNA chemicals, which work as indexes to specifically locate needed information. The DNA and the indexes reciprocate; information is cycled around a feedback loop. The index triggers the production of materials by DNA. The presence of these materials, in turn, triggers indexing to additional productions. On a higher level of systems (nervous, muscular, hormonal, circulatory, etc.), additional indexes are to be found. The utter complication of all this is astounding. The next time you cut your finger, think of all the complex operations required for the body to patch it up. CELL SWITCHING—"What is most important; what should be done next?" Computers function by following a sequential set of instructions. "First do this, and then do that," they are told, and in response they then switch from one subroutine to another. But how does the cell switch its DNA from one process to another? No one can figure this out. "In bacteria, for example, Jacob and Monod demonstrated a control system that operates by switching off ‘repressor’ molecules, i.e., unmasking DNA at the correct ‘line number’ to read off the correct (polypeptide) subroutines. With eukaryotes [a common type of bacteria], Britten and Davidson have tentatively suggested that ‘sensor genes’ react to an incoming stimulus and cause the production of RNA. This, in turn, activates a ‘producer gene,’ m-RNA is synthesized and the required protein eventually assembled as a ribosome. Many DNA base sequences may thus be involved, not in protein or RNA production, but in control over that production—in switching the right sequences on or off at the right time."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 124. THE FIVE CHEMICALS IN DNA AND RNA—DNA is an extremely complex chemical molecule. Where did it come from? How did it form itself back in the beginning? How can it keep making copies of itself? There are two kinds of bases in the DNA code: purines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (thymine or, in RNA, uracil; and cytosine). Where did these five chemicals come from? Charlie, you never told us the origin of the species; now help us figure out the origin of DNA! Do you desire fame and fortune? If you want a Nobel prize, figure out how to synthesize all five DNA chemicals. If you want a major place in history, figure out how to make living, functioning DNA. If sand and seawater are supposed to have done it, our highly trained scientists ought to be able to do it too. Scientists eventually devised complicated ways in expensive laboratories to synthesize dead compounds of four of these five, using rare materials such as hydrogen cyanide or cyanoacetylene. (Thymine remains unsynthesizable.) Sugar can be made in the laboratory, but the phosphate group is extremely difficult. In the presence of calcium ions, found in abundance in oceans and rivers, the phosphate ion is precipitated out. Enzymes in life forms catalyze the task, but how could enzymatic action occur outside of plants or animals? It would not happen. Then there are the polynucleotide strands that have to be formed in exactly the fit needed to neatly wrap about the DNA helix molecule. A 100 percent exact fit is required. But chemists seem unable to produce much in the way of synthesized polynucleotides, and they are totally unable to make them in predetermined sizes and shapes. (*D. Watts, "Chemistry and the Origin of Life," in Life on Earth, Vol. 4, 1980, p. 21). If university-trained scientists, working in multimillion-dollar equipped and stocked laboratories, cannot make DNA and RNA, how can random action of sand and dirty water produce it in the beginning? NON-RANDOM: ONLY FROM INTELLIGENCE—Non-random information is what is found in the genetic code. But such information is a proof that the code came from an intelligent Mind. Those searching for evidence of life in outer space have been instructed to watch for non-random signals as the best evidence that intelligent people live out there. Ponnamperuma says that such a "non-random pattern" would demonstrate intelligent extraterrestrial origin (*C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life, 1972, p. 195). *CarI Sagan adds that a message with high information content would be "an unambiguously artificial [intelligently produced] interstellar message" (*Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 314). "To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin . . The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32. EACH CHARACTERISTIC CONTROLLED BY MANY GENES—The more the scientists have studied genetics, the worse the situation becomes. Instead of each gene controlling many different factors in the body, geneticists have discovered that many different genes control each factor! Because of this, it would thus be impossible for the basic DNA code to gradually "evolve." The underlying DNA code had to be there "all at once"; and once in place, that code could never change! "However it gradually emerged that most characteristics, even simple ones, are regulated by many genes: for instance, fourteen genes affect eye color in Drosophila. (Not only that. The mutation which suppresses ‘purple eye’ enhances ‘hairy wing,’ for instance. The mechanism is not understood.) Worse still, a single gene may influence several different characters. This was particularly bad news for the selectionists, of course . . In 1966 Henry Harris of London University demonstrated, to everyone’s surprise, that as much as 30 per cent of all characters are polymorphic [that is, each character controlled several different factors instead of merely one]. It seemed unbelievable, but his work was soon confirmed by Richard Lewontin and others."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 165-166. (A clarification is needed here about the basic DNA code in a true species which never changes: Chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, will explain how the DNA gene pool within a given true species can be broad enough to produce hybrids or varieties. This is why there are so many different types of dogs or why some birds, when isolated on an island—such as Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos—can produce bills of different length. This is why there are two shades of peppered moth and various resistant forms of bacteria.) In order to make the evolutionary theory succeed, the total organic complexity of an entire species somehow had to be invented long ago by chance,—and it had to do it fast, too fast—within seconds, or the creature would immediately die! 2 - MATHEMATICAL POSSIBILITIES OF DNA SCIENTIFIC NOTATION—This is a number plus a small superscript numeral. Using it, small numbers can be written to denote numbers that are so immense that they are incomprehensible and can only with difficulty be written out. Thus, 8 trillion (8,000,000,000,000) would be written 8 x 1012, and 1 billion (1,000,000,000) would be written simply as 109. Here are a few comparisons to show you the impossible large size of such numbers: Hairs on an average head 2 x 106 Seconds in a year 3 x 107 Retirement age (0 to 65) in seconds 2 x l09 World population 5 x 109 Miles [1.6 km] in a light-year 6 x 1010 Sand grains on all shores 1022 Observed stars 1022 Water drops in all the oceans 1026 Candle power of the sun 3 x 1027 Electrons in the universe 1080 It is said that any number larger than 2 x 1030 cannot occur in nature. In the remainder of this chapter, we will look at some immense numbers! MATH LOOKS AT DNA—(*#4/37 More Mathematical Impossibilities*) In the world of living organisms, there can be no life or growth without DNA. What are the mathematical possibilities (in mathematics, they are called probabilities) of JUST ONE DNA molecule having formed itself by the chance? "Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene in its complexity must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls. "A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1000 links could exist in 4x101000 different forms. "Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 is equivalent to 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 10 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."—*Frank Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338. So the number of possible code combinations for an average DNA molecule is a fabulously large number! That is not 4000 (4 followed by 3 zeros), but 4 times itself a thousand times—or a little more than 10602! How could random action produce the right combination out of that many possibilities for error? LIFE REQUIRED—In addition to DNA, many other materials, such as proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, fats, etc., would have to be instantly made at the same time. The beating heart, the functioning kidneys, the circulatory vessels, etc. They would all need to be arranged within the complicated structure of an organism,—and then they would have to be endued with LIFE! Without LIFE, none of the raw materials, even though arranged in proper order, would be worth anything. One does not extract life from pebbles, dirt, water, or a lightning bolt. Lightning destroys life; it does not make it. GOLEY’S MACHINE—A communications engineer tried to figure out the odds for bringing a non-living organism with few parts (only 1500) up to the point of being able to reproduce itself. "Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all of its parts, and capable of assembling from those parts a second machine just like itself."—*Marcel J.E. Goley, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23. Likening a living organism to a machine that merely reached out and selected parts needed to make a duplicate of itself, Goley tried to figure the odds for 1,500 needed items—requiring 1,500 right choices in a row. Many different parts would be needed, and Goley assumed they would all be lying around near that manufacturing machine! Goley assumes that its mechanical arm will have only a 50-50 chance of error in reaching out and grabbing the right piece! Such a ratio (1,500 50.50 choices) would be impossible for the randomness of chance ("natural selection") to produce. Goley then figures the odds based on such a one-in-two success rate of reaches. But if such a high rate of accurate selection were possible, Goley discovered there was only one chance in 10450 that the machine could succeed in reproducing itself! That is 1 followed by 450 zeros! The more it tried to reproduce itself, the further it would get from success. Far smaller are all the words in all the books ever published. They would only amount to 1020, and that would be equivalent to only 66 of those 1,500 50-50 choices all made correctly in succession! TOO MANY NUCLEOTIDES—Just the number of nucleotides alone in DNA would be too many for Goley’s machine calculations. There are not 1,500 parts but multiplied thousands of factors, of which the nucleotides constitute only one. (1) There are 5,375 nucleotides in the DNA of an extremely small bacterial virus (theta-x-174). (2) There are about 3 million nucleotides in a single cell bacteria. (3) There are more than 16,000 nucleotides in a human mitochondrial DNA molecule. (4) There are approximately 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a mammalian cell. (People and many animals are mammals.) Technically, a "nucleotide" is a complex chemical structure composed of a (nucleic acid) purine or pyrimidine, one sugar (usually ribose or deoxyribose), and a phosphoric group. Each one of those thousands of nucleotides within each DNA is aligned sequentially in a very specific order! Imagine 3 billion complicated chemical links, each of which has to be in a precisely correct sequence! NOT POSSIBLE BY CHANCE—Many similar mathematical comparisons could be made. The point is that chance cannot produce what is in a living organism—not now, not ever before, not ever in the future. It just cannot be done. And even if the task could be successfully completed, when it was done, that organism still would not be alive! Putting stuff together in the right combination does not produce life. And once made, it would have to have an ongoing source of water, air, and living food continually available as soon as it evolved into life. When the evolutionist’s organism emerged from rock, water, and a stroke of lightning hitting it on the head,—it would have to have its living food source made just as rapidly. The problems and hurdles are endless. "Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.8 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read: 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205. Wysong explains the requirements needed to code one DNA molecule. By this he means selecting out the proper proteins, all of them left handed, and then placing them in their proper sequence in the molecule—and doing it all by chance: "This means 1/1089190 DNA molecules, on the average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code the 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 times more than the earth, and would certainly be sufficient to fill the universe many times over. It is estimated that the total amount of DNA necessary to code 100 billion people could be contained in ½ of an aspirin tablet. Surely 1089147 times the weight of the earth in DNAs is a stupendous amount and emphasizes how remote the chance is to form the one DNA molecule. A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have formed."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 115. A GEM OF A QUOTATION—Evolutionists claim that everything impossible can happen by the most random of chances,—simply by citing a large enough probability number. *Peter Mora explains to his fellow scientists the truth about evolutionary theorizing: "A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles, as Wigner demonstrated. "These escape clauses [the enormous chance-occurrence numbers cited as proof by evolutionists that it could be done] postulate an almost infinite amount of time and an almost infinite amount of material (monomers), so that even the most unlikely event could have happened. This is to invoke probability and statistical considerations when such considerations are meaningless. "When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked [in order to make evolution succeed], the concept of probability [possibility of its occurrence] is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and innumerably."—*P.T. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in *S.W. Fox (ed.), The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices (1965), p. 45. -------------------- aka NHMI
| |||||||
|
rizingfire Mycoticus psychoticus Registered: 09/10/07 Posts: 875 Loc: North-east USm'f'nA Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
PROTEIN NEEDED ALSO—(*#6 Amino Acid Functions*) Now let’s look at protein:
Putting protein and DNA together will not make them alive; but, on the other hand, there can be no life without BOTH the protein and the DNA. Proteins would also have had to be made instantly, and in the right combination and quantity,—at the very beginning. And do not forget the sequence: Protein has to be in its proper sequence, just as DNA has to be in its correct sequential pattern. Proteins come in their own complicated sequence! They have their own coding. That code is "spelled out" in a long, complicated string of materials. Each of the hundreds of different proteins is, in turn, composed of still smaller units called amino acids. There are twenty essential amino acids (plus two others not needed after adulthood in humans). The amino acids are complex assortments of specifically arranged chemicals. Making those amino acids out of nothing, and in the correct sequence,—and doing it by chance—would be just as impossible, mathematically, as a chance formation of the DNA code! ONLY THE LEFT-HANDED ONES—We mentioned, in chapter 6 (Inaccurate Dating Methods), the L and D amino acids. That factor is highly significant when considering the possibility that amino acids could make themselves by chance. Nineteen of the twenty amino acids (all except glycine) come in two forms: a "D" and an "L" version. The chemicals are the same, but are arranged differently for each. The difference is quite similar to your left hand as compared with your right hand. Both are the same, yet shaped opposite to each other. These two amino acid types are called enantiomers [en-anti-awmers]. (Two other names for them are enantiomorphs and sterioisomers). (On the accompanying chart, note that they are alike chemically, but different dimensionally. Each one is a mirror image of the other. One is like a left-handed glove; the other like a right-handed one. A typical amino acid in both forms is illustrated.) For simplicity’s sake, in this study we will call them the left or left-handed amino acid (the "L") and the right or right-handed amino acid (the "D"). Living creatures have to have protein, and protein is composed of involved mixtures of several of the 20 left amino acids. —And all those amino acids must be left-handed, not right-handed! (It should be mentioned that all sugars in DNA are right-handed.) (For purposes of simplification we will assume that right-handed amino acids never occur in living amino acids, but there are a few exceptions, such as in the cell walls of some bacteria, in some antibiotic compounds, and all sugars.) "Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation."—Dean H. Kenyon, affidavit presented to U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-15, 13, in "Brief of Appellants," prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-23. TOTAL IGNORANCE—(*#5/29 DNA, Protein and the Cell*) Scientists have a fairly good idea of the multitude of chemical steps in putting together a DNA molecule; but, not only can DNA not be synthesized "by nature" at the seashore, highly trained technicians cannot do it in their million-dollar laboratories! "The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts."— *R. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," in Scientific American, September 1978, p. 70. Dozens of inherent and related factors are involved. One of these is the gene-protein link. This had to occur before DNA could be useable; yet no one has any idea how it can be made now, much less how it could do it by itself in a mud puddle. "None has ever been recreated in the laboratory, and the evidence supporting them all [being produced by random chance in the primitive environment] is very thin. The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery."—*A. Scott, "Update on Genesis," in New Scientist, May 2, 1985, p. 30. Click to Enlarge 4 - SYNTHESIZED PROTEIN THE MILLER EXPERIMENTS—In 1953, a graduate biochemistry student (*Stanley Miller) sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids. We earlier discussed this in some detail in chapter 7, The Primitive Environment (which included a sketch of the complicated apparatus he used); this showed that *Stanley’s experiment demonstrated that, if by any means amino acids could be produced, they would be a left-handed and right-handed mixture—and therefore unable to be used in living tissue. "Amino acids synthesized in the laboratory are a mixture of the right- and left-handed forms."—*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 159. Even if a spark could anciently have turned some chemicals into amino acids, the presence of the right-handed ones would clog the body machinery and kill any life form they were in. (1) There are 20 essential amino acids. (2) There are 300 amino acids in a specialized sequence in each medium protein. (3) There are billions upon billions of possible combinations! (4) The right combination from among the 20 amino acids would have to be brought together in the right sequence—in order to make one useable protein properly. (5) In addition to this, the ultra-complicated DNA strands would have to be formed, along with complex enzymes, and more and more, and still more. IMPOSSIBLE ODDS—What are the chances of accomplishing all the above—and thus making a living creature out of protein manufactured by chance from dust, water, and sparks? Not one chance in billions. It cannot happen. Evolutionists speak of "probabilities" as though they were "possibilities," if given enough odds. But reality is different from their make-believe numbers. There are odds against your being able to throw a rock with your arm—and land it on the other side of the moon. The chances that you could do it are about as likely as this imagined animal of the evolutionists, which makes itself out of nothing and then evolves into everybody else. A mathematician would be able to figure the odds of doing it as a scientific notation with 50 or so zeros after it, but that does not mean that you could really throw a rock to the moon! Such odds are not really "probabilities"; they are "impossibilities!" The chances of getting accidentally synthesized left amino acids for one small protein molecule is one chance in 10210. That is a numeral with 210 zeros after it! The number is so vast as to be totally out of the question. Here are some other big numbers to help you grasp the utter immensity of such gigantic numbers: Ten billion years is 1018 seconds. The earth weighs 1026 ounces. From one side to the other, the universe has a diameter of 1028 inches. There are 1080 elementary particles in the universe (subatomic particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.). Compare those enormously large numbers with the inconceivably larger numbers required for a chance formulation of the right mixture of amino acids, proteins, and all the rest out of totally random chance combined with raw dirt, water, and so forth. How long would it take to walk across the 1028 inches from one side of the universe to the other side? Well, after you had done it, you would need to do it billions of times more before you would even have time to try all the possible chance combinations of putting together just ONE properly sequenced left-only amino acid protein in the right order. After *Miller’s amino acid experiment, researchers later tried to synthesize proteins. The only way they could do it was with actual amino acids from living tissue! What had they accomplished? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But this mattered not to the media; soon newspaper headlines shouted, "SCIENTISTS MAKE PROTEIN!" "The apparatus must consist of a series of proteins as well as nucleic acids with the ‘right’ sequences."—*R. W. Kaplan, "The Problem of Chance in Formation of Protobionts by Random Aggregation of Macromolecules," in Chemical Evolution, p. 320. 5 - MORE PROBLEMS WITH PROTEIN ALL 20 - BUT IN 39 FORMS—The evolutionists tell us that, at some time in the distant past, all the proteins made themselves out of random chemicals floating in the water or buried in the soil. But there are approximately 20 different essential amino acids. Each of them, with the exception of glycine, can exist in both the L (left-handed) and D (right-handed) structual forms. In living tissue, the L form is found; in laboratory synthesis, equal amounts of both the L and D forms are produced. There is no way to synthesize the L form by itself. Here are all 39 forms. What a hodgepodge for the random accidents of evolution to sort through—and come up with only the L forms. Each one has its own complicated sequence of amino acids: 1 - Glycine 2a - L-Alanine 2b - D-Alanine 3a - L-Valine 3b - D-Valine 4a - L-Leucine 4b - D-Leucine 5a - L-Isoleucine 5b - D-Isoleucine 6a - L-Serine 6b - D-Serine 7a - L-Threonine 7b - D-Threonine 8a - L-Cysteine 8b - D-Cysteine 9a - L-Cystine 9b - D-Cystine 10a - L-Methionine 10b - D-Methionine 11a - L-Glutamic Acid 11b - D-Glutamic Acid 12a - L-Aspartic Acid 12b - D-Aspartic Acid 13a - L-Lysine 13b - D-Lysine 14a - L-Arginine 14b - D-Arginine 15a - L-Histidine 15b - D-Histidine 16a - L-Phenylalanine 16b - D-Phenylalanine 17a - L-Tyrosine 17b - D-Tyrosine 18a - L-Tryptophan 18b - D-Tryptophan 19a - L-Proline 19b - D-Proline 20a - L-Hydroxyproline 20b - D-Hydroxyproline WHY ONLY THE L FORM—You might wonder why the D form of protein would not work equally well in humans and animals. The problem is that a single strand of protein, once it is constructed by other proteins (yes, the complicated structure of each protein is constructed in your body cells by other brainless proteins!), immediately folds into a certain pattern. If there was even one right-handed amino acid in each lengthy string, it could not fold properly. (See our special study on Protein on our website. It is fabulous, and shows the astoundingly complex activities of proteins inside the cell.) 6 - ORIGINATING FIVE SPECIAL MATERIALS We are omitting this section from this paperback. It consists of detailed information on the step-by-step requirements needed to produce proteins, sugars, enzymes, fats, and DNA. The complexity of all this is fabulous. Over three large pages are required just to list the steps! You will find this on pp. 280-283 of Vol. 2 of the three-volume Evolution Disproved series set or on our internet site, evolution-facts.org. 7 - ADDITIONAL MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES ALL BY CHANCE—Earlier in this chapter, we said that the possible combinations of DNA were the numeral 4 followed by a thousand zeros. That tells us about DNA combinations; what about protein combinations? The possible arrangements of the 20 different amino acids are 2,500,000,000,000,000,000. If evolutionary theory be true, every protein arrangement in a life form had to be worked out by chance until it worked right—first one combination and then another until one was found that worked right. But by then the organism would have been long dead, if it ever had been alive! Once the chance arrangements had hit upon the right combination of amino acids for ONE protein—the same formula would have to somehow be repeated for the other 19 proteins. And then it would somehow have to be correctly transmitted to offspring! THE STREAM OF LIFE—The primary protein in your red blood cells has 574 amino acids in it. Until that formula is first produced correctly by chance, and then always passed on correctly, your ancestors could not live a minute, much less survive and reproduce. You have billions upon billions upon billions of red blood cells ("RBCs," the scientists call them) in your body. This is what makes your blood red. Each red blood cell has about 280 million molecules of hemoglobin, and it would take about 1000 red blood cells to cover the period at the end of this sentence. (Hemoglobin is the iron-carrying protein material in RBCs, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues, and carbon dioxide from the tissues to the lungs.) Both in complexity and in enormous quantity, your red blood cells are unusual. Several large books could be filled with facts about your red blood cells. MAKING PROTEIN BY CHANCE—The probability of forming 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acids each by chance is 1 x 1064489. THAT is a BIG number! If we put a thousand zeros on each page, it would take a 64-page booklet just to write the number! The probability of those 124 specifically sequenced proteins consists of 400 all-left-amino acids, each being formed by chance. If EVERY molecule in all the oceans of 1031 planet earths was an amino acid and these kept linking up in sets of 124 proteins, EVERY second for 10 billion years would be 1 x 1078436. And THAT is another BIG number! That is one followed by 78,436 zeros! As mentioned earlier, such "probabilities" are "impossibilities." They are fun for math games, but nothing more. They have nothing to do with reality. Yet such odds would have to be worked out in order to produce just 124 proteins! Without success in such odds as these, multiplied a million-fold, evolution would be totally impossible. Throughout this and the previous chapter, we have only discussed the basics at the bottom of the ladder of evolution. We have, as it were, only considered the first few instants of time. But what about all the development after that? More total impossibilities. ENZYMES—*Fred Hoyle wrote in New Scientist that 2,000 different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And then he added that random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these in even 20 billion years! He then added this: "I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers [enzymes, proteins, hormones, etc.] on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. "Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons [the evolutionary theoreticians] who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. "They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations . . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of [the two laws of] thermodynamics."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp. 521-527. *Taylor says that proteins, DNA, and enzymes—all of which are very complicated—would all be required as soon as a new creature was made by evolution. "The fundamental objection to all these [evolutionary] theories is that they involve raising oneself by one’s own bootstraps. You cannot make proteins without DNA, but you cannot make DNA without enzymes, which are proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation. That a suitable enzyme should have cropped up by chance, even in a long period, is implausible, considering the complexity of such molecules. And there cannot have been a long time [in which to do it]."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 201. Enzyme systems do not work at all in the body—until they are all there. "Dixon [a leading enzymologist] confesses that he cannot see how such a system could ever have originated spontaneously. The main difficulty is that an enzyme system does not work at all until it is complete, or nearly so. Another problem is the question of how enzymes appear without pre-existing enzymes to make them. ‘The association between enzymes and life,’ Dixon writes, ‘is so intimate that the problem of the origin of life itself is largely that of the origin of enzymes.’ "—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 144-145. -------------------- aka NHMI
| |||||||
|
rizingfire Mycoticus psychoticus Registered: 09/10/07 Posts: 875 Loc: North-east USm'f'nA Last seen: 2 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
DIXON-WEBB CALCULATION—In 1964 *Malcolm Dixon and *Edwin Webb, on page 667 of their standard reference work, Enzymes, mentioned to fellow scientists that in order to get the needed amino acids in close enough proximity to form a single protein molecule, a total volume of amino-acid solution equal to 1050 times the volume of our earth would be needed! That would be 1 with 50 zeros after it multiplied by the contents of a mixing bowl. And the bowl would be so large that planet earth would be in it!
After using the above method to obtain ONE protein molecule, what would it take to produce ONE hemoglobin (blood) molecule which contains 574 specifically coded amino acids? On page 279 of their Introduction to Protein Chemistry, *S.W. Fox and *J.F. Foster tell how to do it: First, large amounts of random amounts of all 20 basic types of protein molecules would be needed. In order to succeed at this, enough of the random protein molecules would be needed to fill a volume 10512 TIMES the volume of our entire known universe! And all of that space would be packed in solid with protein molecules. In addition, all of them would have to contain only left-handed amino acids (which only could occur 50 percent of the time in synthetic laboratory production). Then and only then could random chance produce just the right combination for ONE hemoglobin molecule, with the proper sequence of 574 left-handed amino acids! Yet there are also thousands of other types of protein molecules in every living cell, and even if all of them could be assembled by chance,—the cell would still not be alive. BEYOND DNA AND PROTEIN—We have focused our attention on DNA and protein sequence in this chapter. Just for a moment, let us look beyond DNA and protein to a few of the more complicated organs in the human body. As we do so, the requirements which randomness would have to hurdle become truly fabulous. Consider the human brain, with its ten billion integrated cells in the cerebral cortex. How could all that come about by chance? Ask an expert on ductless glands to explain hormone production to you. Your head will swim. Gaze into the human eye and view how it is constructed, how it works. You who would cling to evolution as a theory that is workable, give up! give up! There is no chance! Evolution is impossible! COMPUTER SIMULATION—Prior to the late 1940s, men had to work out their various evolutionary theories with paper and pencil. But then advanced computers were invented. This changed the whole picture. By the 1970s, it had become clear that the "long ages" theories just did not work out. Computer calculations have established the fact that, regardless of how much time was allotted for the task,—evolution could not produce life forms! Evolutionists can no longer glibly say, "Given enough time and given enough chance, living creatures could arise out of seawater and lightning, and pelicans could change themselves into elephants." (Unfortunately, evolutionists still say such things, because the ignorant public does not know the facts in this book.) But computer scientists can now feed all the factors into a large computer—and get fairly rapid answers. Within a dramatically short time they can find out whether evolution is possible after all! Unfortunately, the evolutionists prefer to stay away from such computer simulations; they are afraid to face the facts. Instead they spend their time discussing their dreamy ideas with one another and writing articles about their theories in scientific journals. A computer scientist who spoke at a special biology symposium in Philadelphia in 1967, when computers were not as powerful as they are today, laid out the facts this way: "Nowadays computers are operating within a range which is not entirely incommensurate with that dealt with in actual evolution theories. If a species breeds once a year, the number of cycles in a million years is about the same as that which one would obtain in a ten-day computation which iterates a program whose duration is a hundredth of a second . . Now we have less excuse for explaining away difficulties [via evolutionary theory] by invoking the unobservable effect of astronomical [enormously large] numbers of small variations."—*M.P. Schutzenberger, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1967), pp. 73-75 (an address given at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology Symposium). *Schutzenberger then turned his attention to the key point that scientists admit to be the only real basis of evolution: gradual improvements in the genetic code through beneficial mutations, resulting in new and changed species: "We believe that it is not conceivable. In fact, if we try to simulate such a situation by making changes randomly at the typographic level—by letters or by blocks, the size of the unit need not matter—on computer programs, we find that we have no chance (i.e., less than 1/101000) even to see what the modified program would compute; it just jams! "Further, there is no chance (less than 1/101000) to see this mechanism (this single changed characteristic in the DNA) appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less [chance] for it to remain! "We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."—*Ibid. There is a one in 1/101000 chance that just one mutation could be beneficial and improve DNA. Now 1/101000is one with a thousand zeros after it! In contrast, one chance in a million only involves six zeros! Compare it with the almost impossible likelihood of your winning a major multimillion-dollar state lottery in the United States: That figure has been computed, and is only a relatively "tiny" number of six with six zeros after it. Evolution requires probabilities which are totally out of the realm of reality. THE DNA LANGUAGE—Another researcher, *M. Eden, in attendance at the same Wistar Institute, said that the code within the DNA molecule is actually in a structured form, like letters and words in a language. Like them, the DNA code is structured in a certain sequence, and only because of the sequence can the code have meaning. *Eden then goes on and explains that DNA, like other languages, cannot be tinkered with by random variational changes; if that is done, the result will always be confusion! "No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is invariably destroyed."—*M. Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in op. cit., p. 11. And yet evolutionary theory teaches that DNA and all life appeared by chance, and then evolved through random changes within the DNA! (For more information on those special evolutionary conferences, see chapter 1. History of Evolutionary Theory.) THE MORE TIME, THE LESS SUCCESS—Evolutionists imagine that time could solve the problem: Given enough time, the impossible could become possible. But time works directly against success. Here is why: "Time is no help. Biomolecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large ‘word’ (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary ‘sense’ will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 233. ALL AT ONCE—Everything had to come together all at once. Within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing, muddy water. "However, conventional Darwinian theory rationalizes most adaptations by assuming that sufficient time has transpired during evolution for natural selection to provide us with all the biological adaptations we see on earth today, but in reality the adaptive process must by necessity occur rather quickly (in one or at the most two breeding generations)."—*E. Steele, Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution (2nd ed. 1981), p. 3. "So the simultaneous formation of two or more molecules of any given enzyme purely by chance is fantastically improbable."—*W. Thorpe, "Reductionism in Biology," in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 117. "To form a polypeptide chain of a protein containing one hundred amino acids represents a choice of one out of 1O130 possibilities. Here again, there is no evidence suggesting that one sequence is more stable than another, energetically. The total number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is only 1078. That the probability of forming one of these polypeptide chains by chance is unimaginably small; within the boundary of conditions of time and space we are considering it is effectively zero."—*E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World (1982), p. 135. BACTERIA DISPROVE EVOLUTION—Let us go beyond DNA molecules and pieces of protein, and consider one of the simplest of life forms. Scientists have studied in detail the bacterium, Escherichia coli. These bacteria are commonly found in the large bowel. Under favorable conditions bacterial cells can divide every 20 minutes. Then their offspring immediately begin reproducing. Theoretically, one cell can produce 1020 cells in one day! For over a century researchers have studied E-coli bacteria. All that time those bacteria have reproduced as much as people could in millions of years. Yet never has one bacterium been found to change into anything else. And those little creatures do not divide simply. The single chromosome replicates (makes a copy of itself), and then splits in two. Then each daughter cell splits in two, forming the various cells in the bacterium. These tiny bacteria can divide either sexually or asexually. Escherichia coli has about 5000 genes in its single chromosome strand. This is the equivalent of a million three-letter codons. Yet this tiny bacterium is one of the "simplest" living creatures that exists. Please, do not underestimate the complexity of this, a creature with only ONE chromosome: First, that one chromosome is a combination lock with a million units, arranged in a definite sequence. Second, each unit is made up of three sub-units (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). Third, the sub-units are combined from four different chemical building blocks: A, G, C, and T. What are the possible number of combinations for that one chromosome? Get a sheet of paper and figure that one out for yourself. FRAME SHIFTS—Then scientists discovered an even "simpler" creature that lives in the human bowel. It is called the theta-x-174, and is a tiny virus. It is so small, that it does not contain enough DNA information to produce the proteins in its membrane! How then can it do it? How can it produce proteins without enough DNA code to produce proteins! Scientists were totally baffled upon making this discovery. Then they discovered the high-tech secret: The answer is but another example of a super-intelligent Creator. The researchers found that this tiny, mindless creature routinely codes for that protein thousands of times a day—and does it by "frame shift." To try to describe it in simple words, a gene is read off from the first DNA base to produce a protein. Then the same message is read again—but this time omitting the first base and starting with the second. This produces a different protein. And on and on it goes. Try writing messages in this manner, and you will begin to see how utterly complicated it is: "Try writing messages / writing messages in / messages in this / in this manner." That is how the simplest of viruses uses its DNA coding to make its protein! Does someone think that the virus was smart enough to figure out that complicated procedure with its own brains? Or will someone suggest that it all "just happened by chance?" With all this in mind, *Wally Gilbert, a Nobel prize winning molecular biologist, said that bacteria and viruses have a more complicated DNA code-reading system than the "higher forms of life." THE CENTRAL DOGMA—*Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, prepared a genetic principle which he entitled, "The Central Dogma": "The transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible."—*Francis Crick, "Central Dogma," quoted in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 77. The Central Dogma is an important scientific principle and means this: The complex coding within the DNA in the cell nucleus decides the traits for the organism. But what is in the body and what happens to the body cannot affect the DNA coding. What this means is this: Species cannot change from one into another! All the members in a species (dogs, for example) can only be the outcome of the wide range of "gene pool" data in the DNA, but no member of that species can, because of the environment or what has happened to that individual, change into another species. Only changes in the DNA coding can produce such changes; nothing else can do it. "It [the Central Dogma] has proved a fruitful principle, ever since James Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in the 1950s. DNA is the blueprint; it gives instructions to the RNA and to proteins about how to arrange themselves."—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), ibid. "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 88. BLUE GENE—Announcement has been made that IBM has begun work on their largest computer to-date. It is called "Blue gene"; and it must be powerful, for they have been building even larger supercomputers since the 1940s. This one will be 100 times more powerful than Big Blue, the computer used to defeat Kasperson in chess several years ago. They are trying to figure out something which is so utterly complicated that no lesser computer can handle the task. No, not something simple like computing a trip to Saturn and back. Their objective is solving something far more complicated. —It is figuring out how a protein folds! (Also see p. 893 of this book for more information!) In every cell in your body, brainless proteins assemble more proteins from amino acids. They put them into their proper sequence (!) and, then as soon as the task is ended, the new protein automatically folds down into a clump, as complicated as a piece of steel wool. IBM is trying to figure out the fold pattern instantly made by this microscopic piece of mindless, newborn protein! The computer will cost $100 million, and Stanford University is trying to get people to let them use their home computers to help with the task (go to standford.edu for details). They say they need the information to figure out drugs to counteract HIV and other viruses. So far, they can only get the protein to wiggle; they cannot get it to fold (NPR, Wednesday evening, September 27, 2000). For more on proteins and how they do their work in the cell, go to our website, evolution-facts.org and locate a special study on protein. Enter the mad cow: The terrible plague of mad cow disease (initially brought into existence by cannibalism in New Guinea) is caused by eating dead meat containing proteins that, after death, have changed their folding pattern or when humans are injected with raw glandulars containing them. Nearly all cows are fed on feed lots, and their food contains animal protein! The same is true of swine and chicken feed. That is why food animals are subject to mad cow disease. EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS The teeth of a rat are designed so the top two front teeth go behind the bottom two, at just the right angle to produce self-sharpening teeth. Engineers at General Electric wanted to design a self-sharpening saw blade in order to obtain exactly the right angle in relation to the metal it is cutting; so they studied the teeth of a rat. They found there was no other way it could be done as efficiently. As it slices through the metal, small pieces of the new blade are cut away by the metal, thus always keeping the blade sharp. That self-sharpening blade lasts six times longer than any other blade they had previously been able to make. All because the trained researchers studied the teeth of a rat. Who designed those teeth? Why do you have odor-detecting cells in your nose? Why can you taste with your tongue? Why does food have built-in flavors? The food and your tongue were designed for one another! Why do you have semi-circular canals in your ears, sending signals to your brain, so you can stand without falling over? CHAPTER 8 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS DNA AND PROTEIN GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE 1- Prepare a diagram of a DNA molecule. Use different colors to show the different parts. 2 - Research the story of how DNA was discovered and write a report on it. 3 - Would it be easier for DNA to be made by randomness or by researchers in a laboratory? Could living DNA be made in either place? 4 - Research into what is in a blood cell, and then write about the different parts. Underline those parts which could be produced by random action (called "natural selection"). 5 - There are 20 essential amino acids, 300 special-sequence amino acids in each medium-sized protein, and billions of possible sequences. What do you think would happen in your body if just one of those sequences was out of place? 6 - Can "non-random patterns" be produced randomly? Codes are made by intelligent people. Can they be produced by chance? 7 - Find out how DNA divides, and write a brief report on how it happens. 8 - Random production of amino acids always produce a 50-50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms of them. Could the randomness of evolution produce living tissue with only left-handed amino acids? 9 - Why is it that evolutionists do not give up trying to prove that impossible things can happen? 10 - There are 26 reasons why DNA cannot be originated outside of living tissue. List 10 which you consider to be the most unlikely to be accomplished synthetically. 11 - Briefly explain one of the following: translator package, messenger RNA, biological compiler, codon, nucleotide, t-DNA. 12 - Write a report on the mathematical possibilities (probabilities) that amino acids, protein, or DNA could be accidently produced by random activity in barrels of chemicals which filled all of space throughout the universe. -------------------- aka NHMI
| |||||||
|
shivas.wisdom בּ   Registered: 02/19/09 Posts: 14,809 Last seen: 3 hours, 8 minutes |
| ||||||
|
I don't see how explaining what we know about dna and genetic science (at least that's what it seemed like from the parts I read, did not read the whole thing) goes on to disprove evolution..
I can't find any argument other than 'look how complicated this all is, no way it happened without a god', please point them out to me please.
says the person claiming christian fundamentalism? man was made from clay, and woman was made from one of his ribs? -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile  Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I think the bottom line is that both evolution and the notion of a creator are absurd ideas that require copious explination that we do not have access to.
--------------------  
| |||||||
 nooneman  Registered: 04/24/09 Posts: 15,691 Loc: Utah |
| ||||||
|
Dude, how can you be into mushrooms but not understand evolution
 It's all genetics. Besides, if the world is only 5,000 years old, how come we have human remains and artifacts from as far back as 8,000 BC? Not to even mention the clear line of animal remains running from modern day back to prehistory. The domestication of the dog can be traced genetically to around 10,000 BC, not to even mention our understanding of the lifetimes of stars. Our star is simply too old for the universe to have been created in the past hundred thousand years. Why is it so impossible for you people to envision a universe where god created evolution?
Edited by nooneman (12/05/09 07:56 PM)
| |||||||
|
burgatory Outlander  Registered: 02/16/08 Posts: 641 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
So we need to dumb down the concepts a bit. Evolution can be organisation, and the creator can be the inherent intelligence of matter which leads to that organisation. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Germican Wyld Stallyn  Registered: 05/22/09 Posts: 325 Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
If DNA was perfect you may be true...however seeing as there is an error in a base pair (mutation) every 10,000 or so base pairs it supports the ideas of evolution. A single base pair change can alter the structure of a protein quite dramatically based on if the mutation changed an amino acid. Structure = function and if a mutation say changes one amino acid to a Cystine for example you can create disulfide bonds which can dramatically change the protiens function. Evolution is based on these small changes which may or may not slightly affect a creature for the positive or negative. If only this world was perfect however it's not and neither is your body during replication.
And no i did not waste my time reading you copy and paste. Edited by Germican (12/05/09 10:42 PM)
| |||||||
|
Rahz Alive Again  Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 11,214 |
| ||||||
|
Could you cut the proof part out and paste just that?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
| |||||||
|
Kasu Dialectician  Registered: 11/25/09 Posts: 97 Loc: Detroit, Michiga Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
this is absolutely absurd. Evolution, the theory that all animals, life, indeed, all matter in the universe changes over time, from one form to another. The universe works dialectically, not metaphysically. It isn't static, unchanging, and immutable. It is in motion, constantly changing from one form to another, starting from the simplest of matter (electron plasma), to complex atoms and molecules, to organic matter, DNA, life, consciousness, and even to infinitely more complex organizations like social systems. There is nothing in this world but matter in motion.
The fundamental flaw of vulgar thought lies in the fact that it wishes to content itself with motionless imprints of a reality which consists of eternal motion. Dialectical thinking gives to concepts, by means of closer approximations, corrections, concretization, a richness of content and flexibility; I would even say a succulence which to a certain extent brings them close to living phenomena. Dialectical thinking is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion. Dialectics does not deny the syllogism, but teaches us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding closer to the eternally changing reality. Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into quality, development through contradictions, conflict of content and form, interruption of continuity, change of possibility into inevitability, etc., which are just as important for theoretical thought as is the simple syllogism for more elementary tasks. Life, just like everything else, changes over time, from generation to generation. From quantitative changes in DNA structure, produces qualitative evolutionary change. No scientific discovery, especially that of DNA, can disprove that. To say such a concept can become "antiqued" is childish talk, a senseless repetition of the arguments of fashionable reactionary philosophy. We call our dialectic, materialist, since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our ‘free will,' but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of the nebulae. On all the rungs of the ladder of development, the quantitative changes were transformed into the qualitative. Our thought, including dialectical thought, is only one of the forms of the expression of changing matter. There is place within this system for neither God, nor Devil, nor immortal soul, nor eternal norms of laws and morals. The dialectic of thinking, having grown out of the dialectic of nature, possesses consequently a thoroughly materialist character. -------------------- wsws.org 
| |||||||
|
CMACD The Sto)))ve Registered: 02/01/07 Posts: 813 Loc: too scared 
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
DNA is evidence of evolution.... We don't even need a fossil record to argue it to be a fact. If only Darwin could be alive today to see that apes were proven to be the genetically closest species to humans alive today, our closest cousins so to speak, just as he had hypothesized in the origin of species based on visual traits alone. Threads like this are just... UGH! -------------------- 
Edited by CMACD (12/06/09 02:43 AM)
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper   Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
|
Shut up.
You obviously have no legit background in science so stop talking about it as if you do. i'm not gonna waste my time dissecting every little detail, but found one thing you failed to mention that goes with a question you posted...
Have you ever heard of entropy or Gibbs Free Energy? You did good job of not mentioning either of them, yet they are the crux of how chemical and biochemical processes work. Please read up on this topic and tell me what you think of the almighty entropic forces! -------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Evolution does not have to be true... why do people so passionately think evolution is true?
its a great theory... but that doesnt mean it is a true description of our existance. there are lots of holes - specifically - the evidence. now, of course, it is expected that there should not be much evidence because not many fossils survive. but that is not evidence in itself. it is just a reason that someone can be comfortable having less evidence than desired. but in the end more evidence is needed. creationist theories do not have to posit 6,000 year old universe. if there was a creative force in the universe, it could occur over any span of time. you shouldnt believe in a creator, really, because there is no reason to believe so. however you also should be wary of believing in evolution. why not just accept that our origin is a fucking mystery? --------------------
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
|
yeah, there's a bunch of theories out there that remain unfalsified just like evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not -------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
CMACD The Sto)))ve Registered: 02/01/07 Posts: 813 Loc: too scared
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
gravity does not have to be true... why do many people agree so passionately that it must? It's a great theory, but that doesn't mean it's a true description of our existence... right? uuuh, okay. Why not accept that our origin is a fucking mystery? Cause we have ALL THE EVIDENCE WE NEED that our origin is descended from a common ape like from a common rat like from a common fish like from a common worm like ancestor. This thread is funny, because DNA is the STRONGEST evidence of evolution, way stronger than fossil records. People can argue about how alike things may "look", but when it comes to the genetic similarities calculated in strands of DNA, the answer is definite. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery  Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
That's how it seems to me.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
1200 Micrograms shroomed  Registered: 12/03/09 Posts: 563 Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
& Me.
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
thank you, the voice of reason -------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
dopestone tryptavision  Registered: 09/03/09 Posts: 753 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
i read somewhere that our DNA can be infused with gold, and that this was the secret of life!
and if i'm to understand the evolutionists theory of how DNA came about, it sounds an awful lot like creationism. anyone who adopts a definitive point of view is subject to all its flaws becoming their own, regardless of them understanding it or not. we should culminate our efforts to create and evolve our own theory, the theory of shroomerism. -------------------- in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not. 
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
|
well, there are plenty of scientific publications released every year that attempt to "disprove evolution" in one way or another. They fail to disprove it...
I'm sure, through elaborate mental gymnastics, one could look past it all and still deny it. And while we can discuss it, we need to be more specific as to what we're discussing. Evolutionary thought is an interdisciplinary realm that needs to be addressed as such. Thus, when we discuss an idea based on evolution, we should take into account the ecology of evolution in various scientific fields. Then, and only then, does evolution clearly make sense. To try to debunk evolution as a whole just by saying it's a theory is no good. There's plenty of other theories out there and they've yet to be disproved.
...Last I checked, creationism had a static piece of evidence that can't be reshaped; added or deleted from. (except when it went from old to new testament with select dead sea scrolls(thanks romans!)) Unlike creationism, the "theory" of evolution has evolved. The concept and ideas involved are not 100% the same from when it first hit the scene. Though, evolutionary theory, has been and is still being refined. How about the comparison of an open source program being evolutionary theory vs a corporate patented program as creationism. Unlike the static creationism, evolutionary thought is dynamic. -------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
You could be an social/cultural anthropologist! -------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
fishfuse Stranger Registered: 09/19/09 Posts: 40 Last seen: 15 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
rizingfire:
I would like to address several aspects of your post: 1) Abiogenesis, the start of life from non-living matter, is not something evolution concerns; read the Origin of the Species. It also is something which is not presently understood in the same detail that evolution is. Most importantly, no biochemist is claiming that some lightning hit a rock and out sprung fully-formed cells. Your argument is both, with respect to evolution, a non sequitur and, with respect to abiogenesis, a strawman argument. 2) Your claims, if I interpret them correctly, closely follow other creationist arguments, such as that of Dembski, Behe, Gish, etc: that is, if science cannot explain X, then we may safely attribute X to the work of God. Presumably such logic is evidently false to all who read this. 3) Please refrain from posting pages and pages of quotes if you expect people to counter specific, factual claims. I would have liked to be able to address the science in more detail, but I have neither the time nor motivation to do so when your post encompasses such a wide range of creationist propaganda.
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I doubt that poster had any idea what he was posting or whether it was valid or logical. It's most often those that condemn science that know the least about how it actually works.
If you want to dispute an idea you first have to learn what the idea is, as in understand it. When I went to church I was told in no uncertain terms that to read non christian literature was to waste the precious time I could have been edifying myself with the word of god. 
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Life Upon Death Stranger Registered: 10/25/09 Posts: 3,225 Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's new book has biologists and geneticists across the country praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "Dr. Spetner has an extraordinary ability to present complex mathematical, statistical, and biological issues in a comprehensible manner."--Rabbi Joseph Elias, The Jewish Observer "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance "Each new revelation in genetic research, no matter how bizarre and unforeseen, can be construed as a ringing confirmation of the theory of evolution, or so evolutionary biologists would have us believe. With this book, Dr. Lee Spetner risks the wrath of the evolution establishment by challenging the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory, or "dogma" as he calls it. Evolutionists assume that the observed ability of organisms like finches and bacteria to adapt to altered environments is clear proof of the NDT, which holds that random mutations in the DNA molecule are a prime factor in these adaptations. But this inference is negated by compelling new evidence at every level of biology according to Spetner, whose credentials include an MIT doctorate in physics, expertise in molecular biology, and published papers on biology in prestigious scientific journals. Numerous experiments are cited indicating many of these survival modifications are linked to a particular class of nonrandom mutations responding on cue to specific changes in the environment. A given external stimulus will trigger the same chain reaction of hormone-induced DNA mutations every time, yielding an identical adaptive response. Spetner claims research findings like these which don't fit approved doctrine are simply ignored by evolutionary biologists. That charge is echoed with gusto by renowned biologist Lynn Margulis, who issues scathing denunciations of their obscurantist tactics in "Slanted Truths." She believes the "stranglehold" of the Darwinian "religious movement" can only be broken by a rational counter-force from outside the fold. Spetner's authoritative book is an ideal instrument for this deliverance. Critics of the NDT will savor the hard-science rigor of molecular arguments adduced against a theory they believe is largely based on speculative just-so stories. In a historical overview, the author reminds us that when the so-called synthetic theory was first crafted fifty years ago, DNA had yet to be discovered. Darwin himself was blissfully ignorant of the functions and structure of the cell. We now know that mammals are composed of trillions of cells, each containing an information-packed DNA molecule and hundreds of interacting organelles. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask: What if Darwin's quaint theory were advanced today for the first time? The proposal that a clumsy hypothetical mechanism modeled on eighteenth century economic theories and pigeon breeding practices could possibly account for the origins of EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT in the incredibly complex universe of microbiology unfolding before our eyes would be laughable. The hodgepodge theory of evolution has become a religious faith so deeply ingrained in its adherents they appear oblivious to its absurdities. This book relates how stunning advances in biotechnology in just the past two decades have dramatically widened the gulf separating the realities of empirical science from the myths of neo-Darwinism. A number of these myths are spun in "The Blind Watchmaker" by one of evolution's high priests, zoologist Richard Dawkins. Spetner searched this work for traces of solid science and found mainly false assumptions and technical inaccuracies instead. He notes that, "like many passionate believers, Dawkins did not examine his evidence critically." Indeed, his vaunted cumulative selection thesis is riddled with unfounded assumptions. He built his case for it entirely on the power of the concept, with not one word of proof. His biomorph and lexical computer simulations are demonstrated not to represent natural selection as his uncritical disciples may believe, only artificial selection, as in pigeon breeding. The author's diversified background, which also includes lectureships in information theory and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, enables him to speak expertly on a host of technical issues surrounding this subject. Laymen who've fallen behind the dazzling pace of microbiology will be intrigued by his lucid account of the counter-intuitive adaptive strategies in Nature's arsenal. The architecture and mechanisms of the DNA molecule are examined in depth, introducing lay readers to a host of basic concepts like introns, transitrons, point mutations, mutation rates, genetic information and heritable genetic switches. This potent brew is spiced with liberal doses of humorous asides and amusing anecdotes. It should be noted that Spetner's work is narrowly focused on the purely secular, scientific aspects of his topic. It rarely strays into the domains of metaphysics or theology. Amazon reviewers of this book who parrot mindless shibboleths about creationism and gods of the gap as they did with Michael Behe's ground-breaking "Darwin's Black Box " will clearly establish they either didn't read the book or have been hopelessly brainwashed in orthodox biology classes. To appreciate the extent of evolutionists' distortions in the classroom, one has only to browse through a current biology textbook after reading Spetner. To cite one case, he has found thousands of examples of convergence, or parallel evolution, buried in the literature, so one might assume they are a significant fact of biological life. He demonstrates mathematically the impossibly long odds against these uncanny near-identities of features in unrelated species, like wings in birds and bats, being evolved by any feat of natural selection. Evidently academic biologists prefer not to dispute this conclusion. A typical nationally distributed college text, "Biology " by N.A. Campbell, contains 1200 pages saturated with evolution mythology, but just one short paragraph on convergence. An equally inextricable companion phenomenon, mimicry, is completely ignored. Other slanted omissions and distortions abound. Spetner's definitive treatise on what many consider an extremely important issue deserves a much wider audience than it presently commands. Whereas the shelf space afforded the evolutionist tomes of Dawkins and Steven J. Gould in the mega book stores Barnes & Noble and Borders is measured in linear feet, "Not by Chance" is nowhere in sight, not even in inventory. These giant outlets are rapidly driving out alternative book sellers. The inability of an author of Spetner's stature to address a substantial segment of the population that would be sympathetic to his message amounts to de facto censorship by a quasi-monopolistic distribution system. Although most of them will never have the opportunity, avid evolutionists would find this slender volume an eye-opening read."
| |||||||
|
Sleepwalker Overshoes  Registered: 05/07/08 Posts: 5,503 |
| ||||||
|
Seems like one half of this discussion is just building walls...is there a text-block development coming in that I didn't know about?
In other words, tl;dr.
| |||||||
|
EntheogenicPeace Scholar  Registered: 10/04/05 Posts: 3,926 |
| ||||||
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/01/22 08:05 PM)
| |||||||
|
Kasu Dialectician Registered: 11/25/09 Posts: 97 Loc: Detroit, Michiga Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Evolution is the general theory that animals change over time. How can that be refuted?? Animals don't stay the same for millions of years, they aren't unchanging. Animals, life, indeed all matter in the universe are in constant motion and eternal transition, changing from one form to another. It's nothing but metaphysics to say that such a concept could become antiqued. Science by its very nature is capable of giving, and does give, objective truth. We can trace everything back to its origins. Humans, life, matter, the universe, we can all trace them back to their origins, because human consciousness is capable of giving objective truth. These things exist independently of us, and they are given to us through sensation. It's a fact that humans come from apes, but that isn't the main theme of evolution. Evolution is also a fact, that all life changes over time, DNA changes over time, matter changes over time. You can't deny that. Whether there was some intelligent creator to start it all is not a fact, it's a useless abstraction, that stems from the personification of natural forces. Consciousness is not the origin of matter, matter is the origin of consciousness. Consciousness is nothing more than the supreme product of matter organized in a definite way, the final link on a chain that goes back 13.7 billion years, and even farther. -------------------- wsws.org
| |||||||
|
dopestone tryptavision Registered: 09/03/09 Posts: 753 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
just because we're bipedal doesn't mean we come from apes. so that one is definitely not a fact.
we come from apes but we have pig flesh? pig hearts? why do all our bipedal "cousins" have 48 chromosomes and we have 46? what lightning strike did that? how did we lose a chromosome per person? what's the evolutionary benefit of that? we are the most defective animals on the planet, and yet we claim to rule it. we're all a bunch of frankensteins. i believe in evolution, i just think there's a lot more to it than we could ever know. dna is like computer code, we have mapped out the alphabet and that's it! we still don't understand the grammar and syntax and so therefore nobody should be postulating their own rhetoric as to how and why it proves or disproves anything. IMO -------------------- in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not.
| |||||||
|
EntheogenicPeace Scholar Registered: 10/04/05 Posts: 3,926 |
| ||||||
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/01/22 08:07 PM)
| |||||||
|
dopestone tryptavision Registered: 09/03/09 Posts: 753 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
yeah i understand that they fused. but why?
i'm totally with you here just trying to ask the right questions about the topic. -------------------- in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not.
| |||||||
|
Kasu Dialectician Registered: 11/25/09 Posts: 97 Loc: Detroit, Michiga Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Don't confuse natural phenomenon with conscious intervention. What we do every day is conscious intervention. Human consciousness is the highest product of matter that's organized in a particular way. Over time, simple matter becomes infinitely more complex. From the atomic arose the chemical, from the inorganic, the organic, from physiology to psychology.. Matter is constantly in motion, transforming from one form to another, from solid to liquid, from mechanical to heat, from electricity to magnetism, etc. Human consciousness is just another property of organized matter in motion.
Matter is not created by consciousness, consciousness is created by matter, by nature. We are all products of nature. If the source of creation is god, then the material world is god. If consciousness is God, then we, humans, are indeed God, in that we can manipulate matter and master nature. -------------------- wsws.org
| |||||||
|
fishfuse Stranger Registered: 09/19/09 Posts: 40 Last seen: 15 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Taxonomically we are apes, just as we are mammals. With regards to the chromosomes, look up "polyploidy," etc: chromosomes can fuse, split, double, etc. We do know how DNA is interpreted. Without getting into too much detail, triplets of nucleotides, known as "codons", code for one of the 20 amino acids, which are then assembled, in the ribosomes, into polypeptides. DNA acts as a bunch of "recipes" for polypeptides, which include both proteins and enzymes. For more information, look up DNA translation/transcription and the genetic code. It's really interesting stuff.
| |||||||
|
dopestone tryptavision Registered: 09/03/09 Posts: 753 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
what about infusing DNA with gold? what do you know about that?
-------------------- in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not.
| |||||||
|
Blue Key Key that is Blue  Registered: 07/21/09 Posts: 318 Loc: o high o Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Just because there are things that we cannot grasp doesn't mean that there is not answer to them.
Take a dog, for example. It is concious of life and it's suroundings... it experiences phenomenon. And yet, there are obviously things that a dog cannot grasp. It's mind will not allow it to understand math, science, and other human ways of thinking. Just because we cannot mentally grasp certain concepts, or find appropriate explanation for our existence, doesn't not mean a god has created it all.
| |||||||
|
Kasu Dialectician Registered: 11/25/09 Posts: 97 Loc: Detroit, Michiga Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
We can grasp them, in time. There is no difference in principle between the thing-for-us and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. As humanity progresses, our inexact, incomplete knowledge becomes more exact and more complete, and we approach closer and closer to Absolute Truth.
-------------------- wsws.org
| |||||||
|
Germican Wyld Stallyn Registered: 05/22/09 Posts: 325 Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
To stop questioning and theorizing is to stop advancement.
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
|
Grab hold of the holy 40 and embrace black jesus!
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
Mr. Mushrooms Spore Print Collector  Registered: 05/25/08 Posts: 13,018 Loc: Registered: 6/04 |
| ||||||
|
Some people sure are passionate about this topic. I wonder why that is.
-------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Now why don't you just up and tell us.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
although microevolution is a solid truth which has been whitnessed over and over again, 'the theory of evolution' which most appropriately refers to the theory that life arose from non-life through many stages of microevolution, and then procesesd to develop into the range of diverse creatures inhabiting the earth today, is not a fact. It is merely the only theory anyone has ever suggested which relies only on phenomenon already documented by scientists. Of course, these phenomenon have not bee documented to occur in the way that is suggested. it is merely that we can imagine that they could. 'we can trace everything back to its origins' is utter 'bullcrap'. you should know that we cannot trace the universe to its origin because we can only map out, theoretically, all the stages of the universe since it began. We cannot glimpse its 'origin' if it even has one --------------------
| |||||||
|
Mattm Hellbent  Registered: 11/18/09 Posts: 814 Loc: Gone 
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
i feel like finding an answer to this life is impossible, the only way to know the knowledge of how all was created would mean you would have to be the one to have created it. Our brains alone can not handle the truth yet. IMO i feel we should just live this life the way we want and wait for the answer to be given to us, but not go in search for it. Everything will be explained soon enough, just be patient. again thats just how i perceive things, doesnt mean anyone else has to think that way.
-------------------- Good bye to everyone, my time here was well spent, and I think I have gained a lot from coming here. The internet has become to much of a priority for me, and I think I am ready to let it go for a while. < Who am I kidding...I'm hooked for life.
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
This is something people bring up a lot... i don't get it. how is gravity anything like evolution? you can feel gravity every single moment of your life and you can measure it under all the conditions here on earth. You don't need to beleive in any theory of gravity to know that the evidence for a continuous force is always there and always consistent. evolution is not similar. We never have seen a species evolve into a different species. yeah sure, we should not expect to, because it takes millions of years, but that doesnt matter here. The point is that we have not seen it. So unlike gravity, you cannot see macroevolution occuring all around you. What evidence is DNA? people talk about the DNA of humans and chimps as if the similarity somehow evidences evolution? well, although it does not serve to make evolution unlikely, it does not serve to make evolution more likely than an intelligent design account. Because in the end, humans and chimps are very similar creatures compared to everything else on earth. Thus we should expect the DNA to be comparatively similar compared to everything else on earth please elabourate on how DNA is evidence for macroevolution? --------------------
| |||||||
|
OrgoneConclusion Blue Fish Group  Registered: 04/01/07 Posts: 45,441 Loc: Under the C |
| ||||||
Because some people want to move into the 21st century and away from superstition and ignorance while others want to drag their heels. The dinosaurs died long ago. Seems they need to be better buried. -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
echoesSG Dancing Echoes  Registered: 06/09/08 Posts: 433 |
| ||||||
|
Radiation can cause mutation in DNA, over an extended period of time constant bombardment from the suns radiation causes the random mutations that your trying to disprove.
It's not creatures that evolve its the DNA that there built from that gets changed.
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
me?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I strongly doubt icelander was trying to disprove the changes in DNA that occur naturally
--------------------
| |||||||
|
OrgoneConclusion Blue Fish Group Registered: 04/01/07 Posts: 45,441 Loc: Under the C |
| ||||||
|
Most all of the thousands of varieties of domestic dogs, from great danes to chihuahuas, are the result of the selective breeding of wolves. If one was unaware of this fact, one might believe God created them all as they are seen today.
This much is not in dispute. "But they are all the same species," a Creationist might observe as if speciation is the only marker of evolutionary change. Of course the idea of a species is a scientific classification, but the irony is lost on the ignorant. Horses and zebras and donkeys are different species yet vary less physically than some dog varieties. Inner genetic changes obviously affect outward appearance. Can this really be argued? So a Creationist might be forced to accept these obvious facts, but stubbornly clings to the idea that speciation cannot be affected by genetic change. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
yeah i dont really see what youre talking about, sorry
I am not suggesting that people should be able to determine genetic similarity purely based on external features but the genetics of a donkey and a zebra are much closer than between a fish and a hamster --------------------
| |||||||
|
Life Upon Death Stranger Registered: 10/25/09 Posts: 3,225 Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Fruit flies share nearly 60% of human genes and are studied by thousands of scientists around the world. The reason is that fruit flies and humans use the same or similar genes to develop into adults. And the short life cycle of the fly makes it an ideal subject for genetic experiments.
Professor Gerry Rubin, from the University Of California, Berkeley, worked with the Celera Genomics Corporation to decipher the fruit fly's DNA sequence: "They can become addicted to alcohol, cocaine and other drugs. They have a wake-sleep cycle like humans do. They have complicated rituals of behaviour.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien
| |||||||
|
OrgoneConclusion Blue Fish Group Registered: 04/01/07 Posts: 45,441 Loc: Under the C |
| ||||||
Not surprising. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Silversoul Rhizome  Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
That is not evolution. That is abiogenesis. Evolution was never meant to explain how life emerged from non-life(though I think the idea could be extended to explain exactly that). Darwin was very about what his theory was meant to explain: The Origin of Species. That's it. It explains how species change over time and eventually become new species. It explains how life on earth diversified from its earliest ancestor. There are some legitimate debates in evolution, and I am quite critical of some of Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, but the theory of common descent has solid genetic evidence to support it. All life on earth is related. -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
All life on earth is related.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
EntheogenicPeace Scholar Registered: 10/04/05 Posts: 3,926 |
| ||||||
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/01/22 08:09 PM)
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
i dont think a tatraploid can really be used as an example here
as for abiogenisis, silversoul, i think it is a significant hurdle that prvents the theory of evolution from being adequite. If any other mechanism is involved in the universe i norder to create life some way other than reproduction of existing life, then it seems like this force would be capable of functioning continuously, rather than the supposition that the complex process occured billions of years ago and then stopped. so either you consider abiogenisis to be part of your evolutionary theory - ie certain natural processes evolving through mutation and natural selection until they constitute life (as opposed to, say, crystal), OR you would concede an incredibly complex force existing in the universe that has properties capable of producing life. If such a force existed, it would be likely to occur even today --------------------
| |||||||
|
jflow008 Stranger  Registered: 12/05/09 Posts: 67 Loc: Oregon, USA Last seen: 16 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
"there are plenty of scientific publications released every year that attempt to "disprove evolution" in one way or another. They fail to disprove it..." That's great and startling evidence....As a Christian I would be seriously disappointed If their argument for creation was "No one has ever disproven God exists!" No doubt. No one can disprove what i see when im tripping is not actually real either. Sure they can explain the science behind it but if i were a quantum physicist I would just claim It is opening my vision to another dimension. Prove me wrong. Prove my psyche is not setting there next to you getting a better idea why you want to deny the existence of God so strongly. Not disproving proves nothing. At least in science. Thought since that's your expertese you should know. You speak of science and evolution as one and the same. Science and religion are not separate entity's other than in evolutionists boxed in heads. It makes it easier for you to dismiss facts that interfere with evolution. Its great that science is dynamic in the pure since however evolution is no longer pure science. Put it like this although I know you will not peek out of your box because you want to be a monkey so bad. The "dynamics" used in evolution are quite simple and abusive of people who have blind faith in there science gods. If evidence leads in many directions and I only consider evidence that gives me what i want, this is not true science. If there are facts that disprove my theory and I make a "theory" bending this back to where I want it to fit this is not true science. When fundamental evidence i have used to support my theory become conflicting with it and I say well my theory has enough support I will just say "Oh I was wrong about that". That's your science not mine. That's the "blind faith" that evo's generally say that people with faith have. As if science is foreign to us. The only thing more dynamics of evolution are closer to that of lying than they are science. -------------------- Intelligent design is not science because it is not provable.....but out of how many universes throughout the multiverse? I wonder how many of those universes have a designer? Hmmm...
| |||||||
|
Mr. Mushrooms Spore Print Collector Registered: 05/25/08 Posts: 13,018 Loc: Registered: 6/04 |
| ||||||
|
Evolution cannot be disproved by natural means. The game is rigged, as it was meant to be.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
|
Wow, maybe you should reevaluate your perception of evolution, because it's fact. ok, there's no debate, no if ands or buts. Evolution is happening and we've observed it. Don't take that the wrong way. There's no point in wasting time arguing over it.
First off, whoa, don't "box" me into a preconceived category of a science braggart. Let me tell you a little about myself. I study reproductive toxicology, where my work involves understanding how environmental contaminants affect wild animals. If anything, this field has strengthened my understanding of evolution, but that's because I can actually see the beginning of soon to be permanent changes in animals. Also, I work at the molecular level, checking changes in gene expression and how they may affect development of the endocrine system. Some contaminants affect the expression on an individual and are not passed to the offspring. A contaminant known as DES does affect the offspring in some awful ways(wiki link for DES). Not only that, but these effects continue for many generations. ok, now my feelings on religion... I think any piece of religious literature, especially the Bible, that claims to be the "ultimate word" of God is absolute GARBAGE that has been perverted by man. (...It should also be moved to the fiction section of book stores) While I'll credit religion with some good in the world, for the most part, I see blind good. Some Christian classmates of mine want to go to Afirca and help AIDS orphans because, "it's something jesus would do." Dude, fuck Jesus. If you're gonna play with AIDS orphans, then do it because YOU have this sincere desire to do it. Not because some asshole pastor said jesus said so. But... I do in fact believe in "something". I don't think "it" is definable though. I understand that science will not be able to make sense of this "something" I believe in, but my research doesn't involve questions like that, so I really don't have any "scientific snub opinion", as you might like to think I have, about it. (plus, who cares about "proving" if there's "something" out there?) Just don't invoke it upon me. For all I know, we could all be looking at the same "something" but from different angles. I see many similarities in religion/spirituality practices, while the differences seem socially and/or culturally tied along with the environment/region they're in. Maybe you misunderstood the context of my post?
I really don't understand why you're directing this at me? I never argued against God. Also, there's a huge difference between an experimentalist and a theorist.
Well, there's a saying, "No data is still data." So, failing to disprove a hypothesis doesn't mean your experiment was a failure as much as you learned a bit more as to how whatever you're observing works.
You totally misinterpreted my post... Religion is garbage. Spirituality, on the other hand, definitely fits in with science/evolution/everything. In my head, "organized religion" is the biggest, steamy load of nonsense man has ever created. Lastly, I don't know your background, so I don't know where you're coming from. Edited by Cracka_X (12/08/09 02:40 PM)
| |||||||
|
Blue Key Key that is Blue Registered: 07/21/09 Posts: 318 Loc: o high o Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
This is a hilarious argument. It has already been stated that species don't exist. There is no such things as "species". This word only helps in classification. Nature knows no such thing as "species"; as it wouldn't our alphabet, or mathematics...
Evolution, or what we think of it today, has the most EVIDENCE. This is why we use the theory, instead of religious ideas, in schools. And anyway, doesn't it make sense that millions of small changes over a vast period of time could completely change a creature? It just makes perfect sense, really.
| |||||||
|
teeter Mindfucked  Registered: 02/07/09 Posts: 1,093 Loc: Philadelphia PA Last seen: 4 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
Because the bible says that the bible is the word of god and must therefore be taken literally. If the bible wasn't so fucking specific, they would be able to agree with the smarter half of the world. -------------------- "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." - William Blake "Psychedelics helped me to escape.. albeit momentarily.. from the prison of my mind. It over-rode the habit patterns of thought and I was able to taste innocence again. Looking at sensations freshly without the conceptual overlay was very profound." - Ram Das
| |||||||
|
Kasu Dialectician Registered: 11/25/09 Posts: 97 Loc: Detroit, Michiga Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Why is it so hard to just accept that creation lies not within consciousness, entities do not create nature, rather, creation lies within nature itself. Nature exists as matter in motion, constantly moving, changing, colliding, transforming, and complexifying. The "shadow of the soul" is nothing more than the reflection of moving material bodies! From membranes of vibrating super strings of two separate universes colliding, the bang bang sprung fourth, which released a pure plasma of electrons. Over millions of years, this plasma condensed into various sub-atomic particles. Governed by the natural laws of physics, these particles were attracted to each other, creating atoms. From the atomic arose the chemical. From the chemical, the organic. From organic, prokaryotes, to eukaryotes, protistas, animals -- all made out of organized matter in motion, a reflection of the natural laws of physics, a "concentration" of nature into small but highly complex organisms, which have the ability to perceive the world around them, to reflect the outside world. Consciousness is a product of the natural world, that exists independently of us! It is the supreme product of matter organized in a definite way. It is not the creator of the universe, but the creation OF the universe. This alone absolutely refutes all of fideism and its various idealist varieties.
| |||||||
|
Noteworthy Sophyphile Registered: 10/05/08 Posts: 5,599 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
you keep saying this without providing reason to believe it is true
why would matter generate consciousness? how would it do that? We have no tools to answer such questions --------------------
| |||||||
|
Kasu Dialectician Registered: 11/25/09 Posts: 97 Loc: Detroit, Michiga Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Consciousness is product of matter organized in a particular way. Natural science positively asserts the earth existed once, in such a state that no form of life could have possibly existed. Natural science positively asserts that in the beginning of the Big Bang, only a super-heated plasma rapidly expanding existed. Natural science also positively asserts that these electrons collided, forming heavier subatomic particles, leading to the hydrogen and helium atoms.
It took about a billion years for the first stars to ignite out of the hydrogen clouds and wither away, leaving an element rich planetary nebula behind. From these nebulae, new, second generation stars were born, with planets orbiting most of the stars. On planets the right distance from their star, with the right atmosphere, the right elements, water, etc, organic matter formed. Do you see the trend? Matter becomes more and more complex over time. It builds on previous levels of complexification: it goes through a real evolution. Matter evolves. Animals are just matter organized in a particular way, with sense-organs, a brain, the basics. We are also animals, and are also the product of matter-in-motion organized in a definite way. We are products of mother nature. Gasp! It can't be true! -------------------- wsws.org
| |||||||
|
youbreakyoubuy Monkey Mouth  Registered: 10/16/05 Posts: 2,632 Last seen: 16 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
I'd like to know what you are implying here. -------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
| |||||||
|
OrgoneConclusion Blue Fish Group Registered: 04/01/07 Posts: 45,441 Loc: Under the C |
| ||||||
|
It means he has no salient arguments.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
youbreakyoubuy Monkey Mouth Registered: 10/16/05 Posts: 2,632 Last seen: 16 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
That's a bold statement.  I'd say that consciousness exists very dependently on our being alive. No human, no consciousness. Unless you start messing with the semantics of the word, then you can't say that it exists independently of the only creatures that have it.I think what Noteworthy is referring to is that consciousness is, so far, unexplainable. We have no physical explanation for consciousness. We have lots of budding theories, but nothing beyond that it's an epiphenomena of our central nervous system. There was a thread in here not so long ago that dealt with this a little. I remember Noteworthy posting something that was quite convincing and worth a thought. -------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
| |||||||
|
youbreakyoubuy Monkey Mouth Registered: 10/16/05 Posts: 2,632 Last seen: 16 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Well, let's see what he has to say, m'kay?
-------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
| |||||||
|
Freedom Pigment of your imagination  Registered: 05/26/05 Posts: 6,312 Last seen: 1 hour, 1 minute |
| ||||||
what are these theories? quantum mumbo jumbo or something?
| |||||||
|
Kasu Dialectician Registered: 11/25/09 Posts: 97 Loc: Detroit, Michiga Last seen: 13 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
When I said "consciousness is a product of the natural world, that exists independently of us" I was referring to the natural world, not consciousness. Consciousness is dependent on matter being organized in a certain way. When you change that organization of matter, consciousness changes with it, like replacing 5HT neurotransmitters with DMT, you change the organization so consciousness changes. However, you cannot think without the help of the brain. -------------------- wsws.org
| |||||||
|
OrgoneConclusion Blue Fish Group Registered: 04/01/07 Posts: 45,441 Loc: Under the C |
| ||||||
|
There have already been hundreds of pages on this. Don't need to see yet another argument from incredulity.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
dopestone tryptavision Registered: 09/03/09 Posts: 753 Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
the doors of perception explains everything!
-------------------- in general, i'm not sure if i'm indecisive or not.
Edited by dopestone (12/09/09 12:56 AM)
| |||||||
|
loarun1 Stranger  Registered: 05/31/09 Posts: 83 Last seen: 15 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
OrgoneConclusion your argument is so undeniable haha this thread is starting to get rediculous
| |||||||
|
youbreakyoubuy Monkey Mouth Registered: 10/16/05 Posts: 2,632 Last seen: 16 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Pretty much. I'm not too familiar with them to be honest. One that I know of is the Penrose/Hameroff Model
This thread is an example where these issues has been covered before. -------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
| |||||||
|
youbreakyoubuy Monkey Mouth Registered: 10/16/05 Posts: 2,632 Last seen: 16 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Again, I think it best to let him speak for himself if he so chooses.
-------------------- Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.
| |||||||
|
CMACD The Sto)))ve Registered: 02/01/07 Posts: 813 Loc: too scared
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
This thread is hard house
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
agreed -------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
1200 Micrograms shroomed Registered: 12/03/09 Posts: 563 Last seen: 16 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
What?
| |||||||
|
Freedom Pigment of your imagination Registered: 05/26/05 Posts: 6,312 Last seen: 1 hour, 1 minute |
| ||||||
he said its a hard house.
| |||||||
|
jflow008 Stranger Registered: 12/05/09 Posts: 67 Loc: Oregon, USA Last seen: 16 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
Well Cracka X if I took misinterpreted or took any of your post out of context then i sincerely apologize for that as I see that done constantly and in what seems to be intentional tactics. I find it to be chicken shit. So I do apologize for that.
As far as evolution being fact I will have to agree there is no doubt that adaptations and change on basic levels occur. How would life exist on a planet without adapting. Putting simple adaptation into a category of evo and saying it is proof is like categorizing physics under quantum physics. Using simple factual occurrences to further a scientific theory is a simple BS tactic that is being used to pass a theory as fact for those ignorant enough to accept it. No one argues that we have bread domesticated animals to many different shapes and sizes. We have not turned dogs into cats however or cats into a turkey. I know I know it takes a gazillion years...or at least long enough that we will never see it! However, I find it funny the amazing differences we have bread into dogs in a 1000 or so years yet a scientist spending most of his career could not get anymore from a fruit fly than simple physical characteristic changes. No extra legs, wings eyes.....some color and a bit more. OH! plus the two would not breed together. Now I know someone is going to say that he didn't have a thousand years, but maybe you should take into account the life cycle of a fruit fly and the simplicity. I will not argue it is fact to you and the scientists who wish it to be true.I have the same idea of Evolution as you do of Religion, its bullshit. The overall aspect at least. Whales did not come from some hyena wannabee because they have a similarity in the sines cavity and what we presume to be vestigial organs,  As far as your group of Christians I find that kinda funny. Although I do not do so myself my parents among others I know have taken numerous mission trips and I have never heard an ignorant comment like "Its what Jesus would do!" To many bumper stickers for you pal. At least you didn't say "they are doing it to convert people!" Dumb asses that say that make me laugh. I don't know anyone financially stable enough to just spend a couple thousand dollars to go build facilities houses and community buildings so they can convert people. If so many atheists did not presume to be so aware of others intentions and ideals they would not have their heads so tightly wrapped in buttcheaks. I am not aiming this at you as your remark was not in that last category so please keep that in mind. If those kids did say such a stupid thing it was simply because they are kids doing it for the wrong reason and should grow out of it. I hope you could agree this is not a mistake of religion but of people. I agree not disproving something is not without value but only as what it is. I respect and appreciate any ones opinion that can do the same to others. I have and will continue to make mistakes and treat people contradictory to this as most do not do the same. It is never intentional and I apologise for my presumptions. As i said, most of the time it seems as though people who see science other than evo, which is a fact as well, end up in the center of a monkey circle jerk getting shit and semen thrown at them. No science, other than the "word", no respect, other than for the rest of the monkeys, no substance, other than the person with the point, and complete self indulged ignorance yet accusing the opposing of such. AS far as my qualifications I am in no way qualified as much as or anymore than anyone on here. I simply am continually learning by reading watching and going to lectures and trying to find intelligent people to discuss things with. I am guessing most are going to assume my reading and lecturing are all Christian based and on the contrary I find this as self indulged ignorance. I can not stand this on any topic. I find it plenty on both sides though although only Religion gets accused of this. Bill Maher is the most full of shit lying egotistical idiot i have came across.....OK maybe not, Rush limbarf would be farther down. My point is I take anything i can find investigate all aspects and come to my own conclusion, except when it is pure science, basic facts excluding theories. Although I am certainly not as educated as you I am sure I have listened and talked with people of qualifications some would consider more extensive. So sorry for the mistakes I may have directed at you and I am sorry that you are so absolute in what you know when it comes to calling a small fact proof of a immensely more complex theory. Now if youll excuse me I need to grow some wings and get the hell out of here. Homework.  + =evolution....and quantum physics! lol. Just kidding....I love to trip.
-------------------- Intelligent design is not science because it is not provable.....but out of how many universes throughout the multiverse? I wonder how many of those universes have a designer? Hmmm...
| |||||||
|
jflow008 Stranger Registered: 12/05/09 Posts: 67 Loc: Oregon, USA Last seen: 16 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the speciation created by man such as dogs are in fact evidence for natural changes and not intelligent design. Interesting. What were you saying about irony...... I have to admit, anyone who believes in I.D. can not get anywhere trying to debate against people with this kind of logic. IMO the most compeling evidence for Evolution are the way in which people act who support it. -------------------- Intelligent design is not science because it is not provable.....but out of how many universes throughout the multiverse? I wonder how many of those universes have a designer? Hmmm...
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
"they are doing it to convert people!" Dumb asses that say that make me laugh. I don't know anyone financially stable enough to just spend a couple thousand dollars to go build facilities houses and community buildings so they can convert people.
The mission of missionaries is to convert. Churches raise money for this if I'm not mistaken. I spent some time in the Fiji islands and guess what missionaries came and then guess what. Almost all Fijians are now christian. Interesting. I also belonged to several Baptist churches who sent out missionaries to convert. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
OrgoneConclusion Blue Fish Group Registered: 04/01/07 Posts: 45,441 Loc: Under the C |
| ||||||
Incredibly weak argument.  Apparently now you want to redefine ID on-the-fly (note: this sort of midstream redefining is indicative of a lack of counterpoint) to no longer mean the same as earlier and now want to include man as an intelligent agent counter to standard definition of Intelligent Design; i.e. designed by God.That does not earn an irony alert, but an Intellectual Dishonesty (ID) alert. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Cracka_X Spiritual Dirt Worshipper Registered: 01/25/03 Posts: 8,809 Loc: Swamp |
| ||||||
|
oh how witty you are
-------------------- The best way to live is to be like water For water benefits all things and goes against none of them It provides for all people and even cleanses those places a man is loath to go In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
| |||||||
|
jflow008 Stranger Registered: 12/05/09 Posts: 67 Loc: Oregon, USA Last seen: 16 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
Well I cannot argue what you may have expierienced, I can only say that my parents pay for their mission trips. I can also say that they infact go to a place that is already Christian, they do not preach nor have any intention in doing so. They simply go in order to help people who could use it. No doubt coming from your perspective this is in some way this is wrong. Its pretty easy to see why this is. Its pretty common for people of certain character to see others actions as they would if they were their own. Im not sure if i worded that properly as I dont focus much of my time on developing a large vocabularyand wordplay, prefering more of a straightforward approach. And if the witty remark was directed at me, your right I am not. No intention in doing so. Labels as such are for people who like to feel as such. If I had a need it would not be in this crowd. I Wether I am or not I notice you travel in threes. How evolved. In any case I yeild. Ive seen enough of this kind of logic and science from watching Dawkings in interviews and seminars. Its hard to sort through all the imotions and ignorance and then when one finaly gets to it, it was not worth the time. Anyways, no more arguing for me......at least ima try. Id rather enjoy the good things to offer on the site. Have a good time. God bless! lol Just kidding. late -------------------- Intelligent design is not science because it is not provable.....but out of how many universes throughout the multiverse? I wonder how many of those universes have a designer? Hmmm...
| |||||||
|
jflow008 Stranger Registered: 12/05/09 Posts: 67 Loc: Oregon, USA Last seen: 16 years, 16 days |
| ||||||
|
Sorry for the "Not in this crowd statement", it was a pretty stupid remark just tired and babbling. Sorry all.
-------------------- Intelligent design is not science because it is not provable.....but out of how many universes throughout the multiverse? I wonder how many of those universes have a designer? Hmmm...
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I can only say that my parents pay for their mission trips. I can also say that they infact go to a place that is already Christian, they do not preach nor have any intention in doing so. They simply go in order to help people who could use it.
I think this a minority. No doubt coming from your perspective this is in some way this is wrong. Now why would I think that if what you say is true? Its pretty common for people of certain character to see others actions as they would if they were their own. Gotta love the veiled insult in this quote.  Wether I am or not I notice you travel in threes. How evolved. More from Mr. plain talk. Nice post. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
EntheogenicPeace Scholar Registered: 10/04/05 Posts: 3,926 |
| ||||||
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/01/22 08:10 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Bulk Cannabis Seeds APE Liquid Culture For Sale Bulk Substrate Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Spores for European Microscopy |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
DNA = SRM (self replicating molecule) |  Zero7a1 |
981 | 5 | 11/05/02 04:48 PM by Zero7a1 |
|
 |
DNA Language Discoveries.- VERY interesting! (  1 2 3 all ) |
 gettinjiggywithit |
5,453 | 45 | 09/27/04 03:27 PM by 3eyes |
|
 |
DNA ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 ergot |
3,596 | 45 | 12/08/09 01:33 AM by jflow008 |
|
|
dna? ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 mr crisper |
2,455 | 55 | 01/31/03 05:06 AM by Catalysis |
|
|
Evolution ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 SkorpivoMusterion |
9,315 | 61 | 12/08/03 03:34 PM by Anonymous |
|
 |
Genome Evolution | First, a Bang Then, a Shuffle | Anonymous |
1,261 | 8 | 01/31/03 09:29 PM by Joshua |
|
|
Interesting Article On Fungal Evolution |  RebelSteve33 |
759 | 2 | 02/10/03 05:39 PM by RebelSteve33 |
|
|
The evolution of human and technology... |  MOTH |
1,192 | 11 | 02/24/05 09:13 AM by CJay |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 7,991 topic views. 0 members, 73 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||