how cells gain information, the great Dakwins doesn't know, do you?
Cells don't gain information in themselves.
Correct.
But we have an established algorithm for how generations can gain or change information.
I disagree, the algorithm doesn't explain the gain. and all sub components of that algorithm works against it and explain all change already observed. How does the whole of the parts be not only greater than the sum of the parts but also change polarity?
Do you see the faith position as evolution has to take that all there is is naturism. (only the physical)
Equating evolution with naturalism implies you to assume evolution (of some variation) is a correct explanation of physical reality (which is what naturalism is about) rather than merely a well-supported scientific theory.
Evolutionist make that claim. Isn't evolution correct in your eyes? I dont claim it's correct, only that evolutionists do.
As to the physical/natural world and the supernatural world, there are a lot of opinions about what's beyond the physical world. These conflict with one another and more importantly, because they are supernatural claims (and by definition, not explorable with physical observation), they can't be evaluated in an objective way. There are perhaps thousands of formal supernatural explanations and claims for why the world and us exist. Each of these explanations is equally valid and invalid.
I can't argue with that. Do you see the supernatural claim of evolution somehow enhancing a creature?
NS will remove information
I have used evolution in computer algorithms to solve optimization problems. You simply don't understand how evolution works. For small groups, Natural selection does remove information. For larger populations, information is far harder to remove, especially that which contributes to survival of the current generation. Meanwhile natural selection removes the noise introduced by mutation.
If you are talking about genetic algorithms, so have I (admittedly my virtual brain was a retard). They demonstrate natural selection and mutations. And if you try to use computer algos to justify evolution, I will bet you that you made 2 mistakes in it,
1 that at least something survived to the next generation, which is not guarantee to happen in real life, (mutations are fatal.)
2 The layers of cells remained fixed. (No new layers or width of the layers, no feedback loops added, etc..)
Again your program wouldn't show the design limitations of a fatal design but I could potentially show the peak hill problem which is like it. Once the virtual creature reaches the peak optimum performance of problem solving, it will try to stay there as your natural selection will cull out the less effecting creatures that would move away from the top of the hill. Hence the creatures will never know about the mountain thats next to the hill. The is a problem of genetic algos.
Evolution in computer algos, doesn't prove at all evol in biology. they are a potentially wonderful way to analyse a problem but no evolutionist or creationist would argue the software was "proof". As the serious flaws in the model. Yes each generation gets better. (hopefully), but it ignores all the flaws.
And in reality, mutations build up in the populations, and are far harder to remove as they are invisible to NS until they are at critical levels.
Since your seem to be a programmer, I'll ask you this, Take a program you have written, and send the binary though a program that will randomly change a few bits in the program. (assuming CRC checking or digital signing isn't a problem). When you run your program, would it work better.
A quick google will come up with: Evolution as a religious system has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:
I indeed googled and found this quote. The strange thing is that the author, a "David Unfred" also seems to be the author of a book rationalizing dinosaurs in the context of a literal interpretation of the Bible. So once again, we have the claim that Evolution is a religious system, but only from someone who apparently is a Bible literalist.
Did you search for "Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " Thoses are from evolutionists, the above was a description of evolution as a religion from a Christian source. But I still shown that view from:
- Professor Richard Lewontin
-Dr Michael Ruse
-Shallis, M Yes, it would make sence for a bible believing creationist to say that dinosaurs where around. The word dinosaur was coined up in the 1800s, When the King James bible was translated they used another word, Dragon.
(copy and paste from http://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends) In fact, two such animals are described in the book of Job. The first is a giant vegetarian animal that may be either a Diplodocus or a Brachiosaurus: ‘Behold now behemoth which I made with thee; he eateth grass like an ox . He moveth his tail like a cedar his bones are like bars of iron, he drinketh up a river’ (Job 40:15–24). The second appears to have been some sort of large fire-breathing animal. Just as the small bombardier beetle has an explosion-producing mechanism, so the great sea-dragon may have had an explosion-producing mechanism to enable it to be a real fire breathing dragon: ‘Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook his breath kindleth coals and a flame goeth out of his mouth.’ (Job 41:1–34).
The bombardier beetle is a bug in India which creates a large explosion in it's belly to scare of attackers because of the large bang and the terrible smell. The program with this beetle is that the 2 chemicals that get mixed must be perfectly done or the beetle blows himself up. Evolution in small steps can not do this because any mistakes the the beetle is dead. It must be a all or nothing thing. This also protects against mutations because if it degrades then the beetle dies too.
Now you are under the belief that dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago. Did you know that there has been discovered a T Rex with stretchy blood vessels and red blood cells found in USA. the dating on it was ~30,000 years using c14 dating (which is another argument) but that proves that dinos were around very recently. from cave painting in usa from native indians which look like brachiosaurus, to the historical stroy about st george that kill a big lizzard thing, alaxain who army in India was scared by a big thing in a cave, to temples in Lios, which had an icon looking like a 3 horn dino trisearatop (can't spell it). I ask you to look up this dinosaur with blood cells and ask yourself how do you get dinos with red blood cells because it can't be 65Myrs because DNA can not last that long.
This shows the evolutionist is commited to the idea of naturalism no matter the evidence.
"Naturalism" is whatever the evidence is, by definition.
naturalism is the belief that of only the physical exists.
Evolution makes no prediction about anything.
Nonsense. Scientific theories make predictions and explanations by definition. I have discussed a number of predictions made by evolution, particularly the presence
Evolution doesn't make these claims nor are they implications of the theory. People do, such as yourself. And if humans aren't descended from animals, then how is it possible for us to act like animals? Such things as hedonism (and human behavior in general) really can only be explained by humans have significant common traits with animals, particularly primates (which the current theory asserts are closely related to us).
A quick google will come up with: Evolution as a religious system has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:
1 - Space, matter and time are the infinite and the eternal trinity. It is neither being created or destroyed, only changing in form and essence; 2 - Because time is infinite, the potential of accidents to happen, for example, the formation of life from previously nonliving matter, becomes not only possible, but probable; 3 - All life that exists today is the result of these chance accidents occurring in time and giving rise to a process of continued upward development of life on Earth. Man, ape, dog, cat, ant and plant, all life, at one distant point in time arose from at least one common ancestor.
Do you believe the above statements?
I did a look around for well regarded people to quote from and not just "bums by the side of the bus stop", that is I picked the leaders and not no-bodies to quote from. So a google will come up with:
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door....'
This shows the evolutionist is commited to the idea of naturalism no matter the evidence. Another athiests (who is well regarded)
Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled ‘The New Antievolutionism’ (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science?, denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.
He appeared to admit that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous creation/creator—in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant.
Ruse said this: ‘at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’ He went on to defend this unprovable a
That's abiogenesis, but point granted. Thing is, why don't you agree?
I disagree on Evol on 2 grounds for me personally, First is a "religionist" objection: first and foremost is the religious claims it makes. (i.e. No God, people are just animals to be exploited, no ultimate right/wrong because everything is just signals in your brain. And that allows people to do very "wrong" things)
Second is operational science (fact and details) where Evol relies on fact and then switches them for a lie (bait and switch). Fact is NS & Mutations, lie is it can increase information. I'll try to give an example using the signal analogy below to describe the problems it has.
Looking through your criticism, I see that you grant natural selection, but don't appear to understand how it works. A natural though partial analogue is a communication channel that has both a organized component (which I'll call "signal") and a disorganized chaotic part (which I call "noise"). Mutation is the same as adding noise to the signal. Selection is the same as filtering out parts of the channel that don't correspond to a signal. It turns noise into information. For example, if a selection event over a generation removes half of a species, then that can add up to a bit of information.
Natural Selection in that context would be better described transmitting more of the signals (TCP packets?) at the parts of the channels which work more effectively) e.g. not transmitting on a broken line (firewall, bad router) or a line which causes reflections in the signal (fatal preditor;-))
In this analogy, the bandwidth used in the communication is reduced to certain frequencies / tcp packets / information. So if lots of information (and noice) will be "selected" down to lesser information (and very less noise). But for that analogy to describe Evolution, the volume of information in the signal will have to increase, so it's not just a better signal quality of say @56Kbps (analog modem), the evolution would be adsl or fibre optic cables. Now here is where the problem is, If the channel was slowly being converted to adsl, then the second you change to adsl protocol, you have lost all information as both sides would speak a different language. (that is what happen when you try to write DNA, if it's not "~prefect" from the start, you will get a half functioning heart/lung/kidney etc... which will kill the host) Take the jump from adsl to fibre optic, if any of the line is converted to pastic, it will lose it's signal again, those when a "evolution" happens, it must be all or nothing. NS will do it's best to route around the "damage" cable for as much as possible.
Quite a few of the "bad" mutations aren't. For example, there's a recessive gene variant which when fully expressed causes sickle cell anemia. But when it is paired with a "normal" copy of the usual gene, confers enhanced resistance to malaria. Others simply manifest too late to be evolutionarily significant, such as genes that cause death or serious illness in people over the age of 40.
Yes, I agree, some mutations can be good (and you check I bet it's a broken gene working better?), others/(most?) can be "invisible" until they build up in the population. as mutations increase over the generations. NS only work when the mutations are visible. so errors are creaping into the human line over time. (Thats why the people in the bible lived to be crazy old of over 960 years but shorten very quickly for each generation just as expected with mutations built up)
Later we know no matter how many generations of artificial natural selection, you will never geta cat or a bird from breeding dogs together.
That hasn't been shown, especially in the presence of the full mechanics of evolution, including mutation.
I beg to differ, We have been breeding pidgins for 300y
Why Atheists require evolution: Atheists reject God, therefore they must have everything self assembling (Aliens only move the problem to another planet). Because things dont self assemble themselves right now, it must of taken a long time to do it because we cant see it happening now.
What is Evol? Evolution is the theory of things changing. The theory basically demands that things can improve and can gain complexity (information). Goo to you via the zoo. For arguments sake: yes the theory also suggests that things devolve which no one argues against . And yes evolutionist will still need abiogenises. (The goo created life from nothing and didn't destroy it).
What doesn't work about Evol, To understand how it doesn't work you need to understand it's components: Evolution = Natural Selection + Mutations. 1 - Natural Selection.
Natural Selection is the "survival of the fittest". This means the the variation thats naturally "designed" in a creature will be favoured.
At first Charles thought this is all that is required. As a cell was a simple blob. Later we know no matter how many generations of artificial natural selection, you will never geta cat or a bird from breeding dogs together. NS can not be a driving agent for Goo to You. 2 - Mutations
Mutations were added as a changing agent, because NS just didn't cut it. Mutations are suppose to enable changes which NS will then select if they are good.
Natural Selection is a scientific fact, people do not argue about this. It's common sense, ever since it's was pen down in the 1600s by some monk breeding pees together. (Actually was published a couple of years before Charles' book) The problem with NS when applying to Evolution, is the Natural Selection works against Evolution. As a reminder: Evolution is goo to you via zoo. NS will remove information/complexity in the creature, never add it. as simple 6th biology gene grid of two dogs breading:
B S
B BB BS
S SB SS
Here you have 2 dogs both carrying (B)ig and (S)mall geans for fur coats. When the breed they will have 1(25%) big coat club, 2(50%) median size clubs, and 1(25%) small fur club. When its a clod place and only the big fur coat club survive to breed with another big fur dog, you will only very get BB,BB,BB,BB as a result. hence you have strip away from the DNA the small gean. That is 1 way NS will work agaist Evolution.
Mutations: They are mostly benign, meaning they dont do anything, but when they do have an effect, they are mostly bad, very bad. We know of 10,000 mutations to the human body which causes diseases like caners and liver failures etc... , and about half a dozen to what I hear are actually "good" mutations. The problem with these "good" mutations is they work by disabling functioning systems in the body which can be benifitical thus working in the opposite way that evolution needs. To date there is no good mutation in the human body recorded which increases complexity, (have you evoled wings?)
Please dont try to lump evolution the category real science. Because I would argue that atheists don't want to acknowledge the facts of evolution. (namly that it doesn't work) but they insist on it because it is their "religion".
I agree, theres no direction in the theory, i didn't mean to imply that there was, i was just makingthe statement that it can go upwards. (it can go down and to the sides) and in the case of "living" fossils, they dont change at all for 150,000,000 years. (I am not claiming that date to be right but thats an entirely different argument)
No, it does not. Evolution simply favors that which survives the best. Sometimes it does so by REDUCING complexity. A good example: frog genomes are nearly 500 times more complex than human genomes (that is - they have about 500 times as many genes as we do). Yet frogs have been around a lot longer than we are and are way more primitive. But frog DNA has to deal with all sorts of things - a tadpole in an egg needs to develop at a certain rate, that implies chemical reactions and chemical reactions are temperature sensitive. So if it gets warmer the enzymes need to have things added that slow down the reactions, if it gets colder other things are added to speed them up. Frog DNA are filled with countless little variations of "if temperature is between X and Y add enzyme Z" for every proteine in their bodies. Humans (in fact all mammals) get to grow in a climate controlled environment so we have long since discarded all that extra DNA which egg-layers have. We've evolved to survive better by getting SIMPLER - not more complex.
You have started off in a high state in this example. For a better example would of been a low state leading to a high state. As I would just waive my hands and say look at the complex design of the frog which can be adjusted by NS.
The same almost applies to the human example, I am ignorant of the details of HSP but to me it sounds like you just describe the following:
the body's complex self repair and error correcting system, (high state),
a specification of design of the HSP (again high state, how did it get there in the first place)
A defect/feature? in the design of HSP, (Mutation maybe?) which will lead to other mutations.
That shows NS and mutations in progress. (bad mutations deleted, good (if any?) hopefully kept) For it to demonstrate "evolution", it will need to provide a functional advantage to the host and also have that encoded that into the DNA (was the source in the dna already? how would become workable now in the 2nd generation? i dont understand this. wouldn't the HSP be working in the 2nd gen and hence try to fix the problems of the accumulative mutations? ) without killing it first from cancers, etc..
Everything you said about in your "turn it around" is meaningless, that's what I said anyway, if somebody proves evolution impossible, then we'll find a NEW theory that doesn't have the flaw he proved. Falsifying evolution wouldn't prove creation, wouldn't prove God and wouldn't even SUGGEST either.
I agree, falsifying the latest beliefs in evolution wont stop it. You should not ever question evolution because that is unscientific.;-) But I would disagree on you that it should suggest that there is the other option that atheists rule out because they dont like it. ID is scientific, because if you saw a watch on the beach, you wouldn't say that the tides, winds and sand made it.
As for your idea that evolution isn't real science... I guess the fact that the ENTIRETY of ALL biology would collapse without it
Biology doesn't benefit at all from evolution. Vaccines, surgery, you name it, they all dont need the theory of evolution at all. They all work on the assumption that the body/cells are a complexly design integrated system. (NS & mutations are required theories for vaccines, etc...) Easy test to try out, go to your local doctor when your arm is broken, and say, I need my arm fix, tell me doctor, what would having this broken arm do to my chances to procreate ?:-P Your doctor would be working from the assumption that your bones are a building framework designed (by what/whoever) so you can move, supported by a complex nervious system, surrounded by 1000s of blood vessles. But if your doctor needed to use evolution, he would then say, its a vestigial organ and it's not needed anymore, lets remove it li
C14 is suppose to be good up to between 50K to 100K. There are scientific concerns that the calibration based on Pharaohs is off because they padded their linage. which would make a dating to seem older by a little. Now the creationist scientist would have a problem in that you are making assumptions about comparing the c12/14 ratios based on current levels of today where if you read the bible, you would know it declared that there was a 1 year, 8 day flood which covered the entire earth. (yes this is possible, it's called catastrophic plait tectonic theory). That would make the dating seem much much older after 4000 years
But when the guy raised that issue he really should of explained it better as it sounded like he was just spewing s**t out.
>Note: I am a creation believing christain. I dont believe in evolution. (I do believe in natural selection)
Congratulations, so was Darwin. Now you only have 150 years of biology left to catch up on...
Actually what I think you MEANT to say is that you don't believe in abiogenesis.
Your right, I dont believe in abiogenesis
Evolution is the concept of organisms changing
I would have to disagree with you on this on a certain level, Evolution is taught as a concept things changing but it makes the grand claim of things improving upon themselves to do it, by gaining complexity and self forming into "higher" life forms.
natural selection is one of the effects that can drive the direction of evolution and almost certainly the most important one but there are others which have been identified (mostly because they cause occasional anomalies like rapid speciation). So evolution is not quite a synonym for natural selection
I agree with you that NS isn't quite a synonym of Evol, Many things can effect the "evolution" of a creature. Well I dont argue that things change and things degrade, neither of these need "evolution" to happen. lets take a look at how classic evolution is suppose to work beginning with it's first formula:
E = NS Now when Charles was alive, he was limited to technology back then so the cell was just a glob. It seem very possible that NS could explain the differences in all the creatures but as we know now NS can only work so far within the bounds of the creature. For example, over 300years of breading pidgins and not a single chicken has emerged. (Joke on chicken and the egg)
That is why then they need mutations to act as a changing agent so new information (leg, wing, etc...) could enter the gene pool. E = NS + M
Now with modern science we know that if you stand infront of nuclear blast and absorb all thoses beneficial mutations, you will not become the hulk. In fact, we know of over 10,000 mutations which causes cancers, blood sicknesses which are mostly fatal, yet only a handful of good mutations which all involve disabling functional structures in the body (devolving can be a benefit).
Now here we can see how NS will fight against M has much as possible. Normally M is harmless. but if the level of mutations build up, they can then effect the creature. NS would try to cull any creature if a very bad mutation but NS can't filter out minor bad mutations if they don't effect the host too much. The effect is bad mutations build up the gene pool to lethal levels. You wouldn't expect people living around a nuclear plant that leaks radiation to become super fit humans, you would expect them to suffer sickness getting worst in each generation.
Charles became an atheist. I think it happened when one of his children died, but I could be wrong on that.
I would very much doubt if a person could think up a way of how abiogenisis/evolution could happen without deluding himself to a great amount.
Well, if you're faith is worth having at all... NOTHING. So you figure out another of the tools in God's toolbox, if that means you can't believe in God your faith was worthless in the first place. For those of us who don't believe now, it will be just further proof that there's nothing we can't adequately explain WITHOUT a creator.
I will not put my faith into "fictional science". (Thats story telling like evol and big bang). Thats something that changes like the wind, here one day, something else the next. May I propose the exact idea back to you, What if a creationist scientist proved that evolution couldn't happen, What if a creationist scientist showed an alternative to all the evol theory, what then? well NOTHING. you just ignore them and continue believing in what you do like what is always happening.
What I should of said in my original post was that you do
I am 100% confidant that he believes he can make cells from metal. But reality is different. In organic cells, the simplest cell is very very complex. Take for example the ATP synthase - the world's tiniest motor, which is a engine which is compulsory for all life. Every cell has 1000s of these as they convert protons into a transportable energy molecule called ATP. For any cell to be manufacture, he must make many many dependant systems to work together before anything can get off the ground with natural selection or "evolution".
I would be very interested in seeing how far and how complex he can make these systems. IMHO: he faces 2 problems,
1 is he doesn't have the technology to produce replicators, and all the systems needed,
2 if he very smarter than every other human on earth in orders of magnitudes then people will say:
2.1 - He hasn't shown evolution because he built complex nano-bot systems, they didn't evol, they were built.
or
2.2 He proves evolution, look at the new life forms, (and they ignore all the nano tech in it, like batteries, circuits, engines, resource transport trucks, error correcting nano nano robots, etc...) Atheist already ignore all the tech in organic cells so it's seems like this event will be more probable.
Also I dont count crystal structures in either rock / salt / poly -metal - oxide - whatever, to be "living".
Note: I am a creation believing christain. I dont believe in evolution. (I do believe in natural selection)
The article talks from the assumption of long ages and evolution. It assumes about the humans mutating from (insert type) monkeys. The Christian view is that we did not come of any type of monkey or ancestry ape. Therefor if you are trying to map the human gnome to any monkey/ape you will require large changes to the information in the dna. I remember reading that even atheists claim that from a mutating gene we all came from a human in Africa (although they date it at ~40K years)
You should all of hear how chims are 98% human, how many of you know that we are 95% horse and 95% mouse, 50% banana.
They do not believe the assumptions behind evolution. When your eyes are open to examining the evidence yourself you will see the weakness of the evolution claim.
So next time you try to bash a Christian as not knowing anything, first see what they say about the subject. And yes I do interpret Genesis as literal history as it is written in such a way. It starts the foundation of jewdo/christain reliegon and if a Christian can't take that as a fact, they can't take anything else in the bible as fact. It is important to understand why "we" believe in the things we do, Christianity is logical system and not something to that should be just "believed" in like the tooth fiery or "santa claws" (he did exist in 12th cen, so say that to your 5 yr then say he dead, lol >:-) )
p.s. There is no apple in the garden! we dont know wtf it looks like! so someone draw an apple instead, just be glad it wasn't a durian fruit. Cheers
the 100 acids was an example shown minimum complexity. for any cell to function it needs to have certain mimimum level of functionality. Like how a mouse trap needs 4 parts to work, the base, latch, spring, trigger. If you take any part of theses away, the trap can not go off. And the same will apply to any cell. (well, I've heard some cells and degenerate so much that they are leaching off other cells to survive) Like in a car, if the cars doesn't have wheels, or doesn't have a cam shaft, or doesn't have a pistons then the car will not drive. There is a minimum level required for a cell, that was my argument for abiogenesis.
I've noticed you mention that shorter combinations can combine, and thats a big problem for evolution because you can't randomly mix senquences together because either they produce something which doesnt work,or they kill the chain like in left vs right handed proteins.
And example off the top of my head is hemoglobin, I have a memory hearing that it's is first generated as a ~1000 long protein string folded into a 3d shape. This shape has no functionality. Another protein then shaves off part of the 3d shape and you were left with ~700 proteins, this happens 4 times until you get the function red blood cell at 564 proteins. Now there are a few (6 i think, i am probably be wrong) variations of this which are genetic blood disorders.
I can't see how any amount of time can make something possible. If you extract back, the theory suggests chemical evolution of a "simple" cell. which even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein coding genes are required to be wholly operational for life to begin. The famous muller experament (in ~1957 I think) shows a chemical trap required to get proteins but in that shows the enormous problems of the information. For life, aka the simplest of self sustaining cells require all the proteins to be either left or right handed. If a left protein attaches to a right protein then the chain is terminated. all of the human body is right handed. The experiments also require that there be no water and no oxygen in the environment. DNA at 0 degrees break down in under 10,000 years and all the goo stories I've heard are "hot" pools where the proteins break down even faster. (at 100' I remember it being 90minues.) I remember reading about a scientist creating 2 of the RNA molecules in just under 13 steps which each step was then filtered because the process in each steps produces side products which are "fatal". e.g. left and right handed proteins. So saying there are long periods of time is actually harmful to the process of chemicals self assembling themselves. Since I am holiday and board out of my mind, I'll try and google for this book.
btw: A resource I look at often is the website http://Creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers. that link contains alot of information many people just dont know about. They are a "christian".website but it dosn't matter that you dont believe the christian stuff which is usually at the bottom of the webpages. Read about the science articles and come to your own conclusions they will show in science things in the different light and will make you think.
just a quick search of that site and i can quote this: which is the odds chemically of just 100 amino acids where the simplest known is 480 proteins.
what is the probability of getting just 100 amino acids lined up in a functional manner? Since there are 20 different amino acids involved, it is (1/20)100, which is 10^130. To try to get this in perspective, there are about 10^80 fundamental particles (electrons, etc) in the universe. If every one of those particles were an experiment at getting the right sequence with all the correct amino acids present, every microsecond of 15 billion years, that amounts to 4.7 x 10^103 experiments. We are still 10^27 experiments short of getting an even chance of it happening. In other words, this is IMPOSSIBLE!
But I'll will look at the book mention above, I just hope some of you people will read the things I said from the other side of the fence.
I am on the other side of the fence, a creationist.
Evolution does require alot of belief. Most people belief that evolution is just the changes of an organism, like the how the pepper moths in england with 2 colors or the beaks in finches. If that was true that would make me an evolutionist.
But evolution contains a half true which will make it every believing until to understand and break down it components.
For evolution to work you will need a selecting agent and a changing agent. For me this is how I see Evolution. Evol = Natural Selection + Mutation.
Now I've talked about this on/. before but no one is interested. Both NS and Mutations are hostile to evolution. For evolution to work in the context of goo to you via zoo, it must have the capability to information. With NS this will specialize the variation in the "creature" . e.g. all dogs comes from wolfs (evols & creationists agree on that) due to man's natural selection, we get Great Danes and chiwawas, it doesn't matter how many times the chiwawas breeds, you never get a great dane out of them. the information for being big has been bread out of them.
Thats why mutations are required in the formula. You need a changing agent. But the problem with mutations is that the vast majority of them are negative, with only a very few being positive for the host. and of those being positive none of them invovled increase in the dna, just disabling of functionality which just happen to a good outcome. E.g. of good mutations which are actually mutations which disabled working functionality.(again thats the opposite way for evolution)
westerners who can drink milk have a mutation which stops a gene normally being turned off as a baby.
theres a beetle off a windy island off Italy somewhere where because there wings are disabled, they dont get blown out to see. (the main land bugs can fly)
The really muscular cows in Europe. (of course NS in the wild would kill them off cause they need to humans to help give birth)
So I argree that Evolution should be taught, along with all it flaws about how it can't explain goo to you via zoo happens. because as of now it is being taught like it was a fact without all the flaws in the theory. To summarize:
Evol = NS + Mut.
NS = fact but works against Evol
Mutations is fact, but works in all known cases against evol (doesn't actually has to be bad mutations in rare cases)
Evol is a half true story which means its a fabrication and shouldn't be used to darken the name of science.
Ask yourself does what I have written make sense to you. As I hope I have reached some people with understand as why I will not believe evol and why (some) creationists are not crazy nuttys and actually understand the issues at work here and come to there own conclusion and not what others say to believe.
I am truly sorry for your loss Miss Gottschalk, but your husband body was found by our flying vulture team. He was floating in the river and his left eye was eaten by one of our teammates.
So they assume an age based on the size / color of the star and then based on that assumption they will use the spin of the star as a guide to its age. This assumes that the older stars will always spin at different speeds from younger stars. Given that older stars will expand, and therefor be larger so will spin slower to keep it's angular momentum this raises the question
So how would they know the starting spin of the star? if we have 2 "young" stars, 1 spins 1 per year, the other 1 per month, when they get old they will obviously spin at different speeds.
Also, does anyone know how long it takes the Sun to rotate? I remember it has 2% of the angular momentum of the solar system but the bulk of the mass,
(Warning, my christian troll views coming up, cover your hears if you don't like whats coming up) Something to make you think: Why does the Sun have 2% of the angular momentum if by the gas cloud theory says that it should be in the center of the solar system and therefor like a ballerina when it's arms are in, have the most angular momentum, but the Sun almost have none. the only theory I could think of is if the cloud wasn't spinning, but in that scenario, the planets would just fall into the Sun. Note: Angular momentum isn't effect by the size / mass of the Sun. The sun could be heavy or larger, the spin will be slower but the angular momentum would be the same.
I like your idea, I propose that we get NASA to lunch a man object over to the moon to check out your theory. Because for all we know those Flying Spaghetti Monsters are terrorist with downloaded music from *AA with HDs full of child porn.
Wont someone think of the children!
You just got to learn to speak politicians language if you want to get your way. (I actually would like a man mission back to the moon in my life time).
It's great to cover my ass at a previous work
on
The Death of BCC
·
· Score: 0
When I needed a coworker to her job I would email BCC to the boss just to let him in on whats going on and to at as prove later on if required.
It covered my butt a couple of times because since I am the "tech" at my work, I could easily fake an email, so by sending at the same time my butt is covered if a dispute occurs and the coworker never received my deleted email. (I hate people playing politics at work)
And on the plus side, the boss would think I am hard working and motivated while the other is troublesome.
1 Evolution isn't a fact. It's a theory/story based on fact and "optimistically" reinterpreted into what it is. 2 The moon showing the same face to earth is because the moon is gravitationally locked to the earth. This happens when there is an imbalance in the orbiting object and the heavy side is pulled towards the earth/star. This doesn't mean the Moon was caught by the Earth.
As for 1, Evolution is the theory that simple life/cells build up complexity into better life forms. This is done by using 2 facts,
1 Natural Selection.
NS is where the fittest survives to the next generation. But NS is the exact opposite of Evolution.
Evolution is from simple to complex, but NS is complex (in information) to simple (less information).
This can mean the lifeform survives better. and example of how NS is opposite to Evol is dogs/wolfs.
Everyone agrees all dogs came from wolfs. So the dna of wolfs contain both Big dogs and small dogs.
When they bread, you will get some of the dna of both parents into all the children but not all the possibilities.
So if you get 2 small dogs, you will never get a big dog out of them. Same for blue eyes and brown eyes in humans.
heres a overly simple chart / view:
Bs Bs DNA of 2 wolfs containing both "big" and "small" geanes
BB Bs Bs ss There children containing the variation of the DNA.
BB BB What happens when you get only Big dogs breading is the result of only Big dogs.
BB BB BB BB
So Natural Selection will reduce information, and is the opposite to evolution.
2 Mutations
Mutations are mistakes in the dna where there shouldn't be the normal variation. Normally DNA will detect and remove errors in the code but when something isn't corrected, you get the mutation. The vast majority of mutations do not show there effect during the breading time of the lifeform. So mutations are passed down from generation to generation without notice. Usually when a mutation is seen it shows up as a very bad thing. There are a few exception to this. E.g. Theres an island near Italy where the bugs have no wings because of a mutation but that loss of information meant they were kept on the windy island instead of being blown away.
Viruses & bacteria do not have the DNA correcting abilities like we do, (and ignoring the cross breading that they do), they are not getting any more information when they mutate. But when they mutate they often lose something information and become weaker compared to there wild cousins. but due to the change in the structure of there surfaces our bodies find it harder to attack them. (natural selection going on there, not Evolution).
Evolution doesn't make predictions that creations can't also explain. It depends how you interpret the data given. But when it comes to benefits, if you assume the human cell is a super complex machine, with all it's complexities, you will get further than thinking it's a "simple" mistakenly assemble thing. Like how Evolution pushed the idea of "junk" DNA consisting of 95% of us yet only discovering recently that all of it is used. That is one of the greatest failure of Evolutions predictions which has cost all of us alot of time which could of been used in researched.
Slashdot Mirror
We can just cut to the chase.
how cells gain information, the great Dakwins doesn't know, do you?
Cells don't gain information in themselves.
Correct.
But we have an established algorithm for how generations can gain or change information.
I disagree, the algorithm doesn't explain the gain. and all sub components of that algorithm works against it and explain all change already observed. How does the whole of the parts be not only greater than the sum of the parts but also change polarity?
Do you see the faith position as evolution has to take that all there is is naturism. (only the physical)
Equating evolution with naturalism implies you to assume evolution (of some variation) is a correct explanation of physical reality (which is what naturalism is about) rather than merely a well-supported scientific theory.
Evolutionist make that claim. Isn't evolution correct in your eyes? I dont claim it's correct, only that evolutionists do.
As to the physical/natural world and the supernatural world, there are a lot of opinions about what's beyond the physical world. These conflict with one another and more importantly, because they are supernatural claims (and by definition, not explorable with physical observation), they can't be evaluated in an objective way. There are perhaps thousands of formal supernatural explanations and claims for why the world and us exist. Each of these explanations is equally valid and invalid.
I can't argue with that. Do you see the supernatural claim of evolution somehow enhancing a creature?
NS will remove information
I have used evolution in computer algorithms to solve optimization problems. You simply don't understand how evolution works. For small groups, Natural selection does remove information. For larger populations, information is far harder to remove, especially that which contributes to survival of the current generation. Meanwhile natural selection removes the noise introduced by mutation.
If you are talking about genetic algorithms, so have I (admittedly my virtual brain was a retard). They demonstrate natural selection and mutations. And if you try to use computer algos to justify evolution, I will bet you that you made 2 mistakes in it,
1 that at least something survived to the next generation, which is not guarantee to happen in real life, (mutations are fatal.)
2 The layers of cells remained fixed. (No new layers or width of the layers, no feedback loops added, etc..)
Again your program wouldn't show the design limitations of a fatal design but I could potentially show the peak hill problem which is like it. Once the virtual creature reaches the peak optimum performance of problem solving, it will try to stay there as your natural selection will cull out the less effecting creatures that would move away from the top of the hill. Hence the creatures will never know about the mountain thats next to the hill. The is a problem of genetic algos.
Evolution in computer algos, doesn't prove at all evol in biology. they are a potentially wonderful way to analyse a problem but no evolutionist or creationist would argue the software was "proof". As the serious flaws in the model. Yes each generation gets better. (hopefully), but it ignores all the flaws.
And in reality, mutations build up in the populations, and are far harder to remove as they are invisible to NS until they are at critical levels.
Since your seem to be a programmer, I'll ask you this, Take a program you have written, and send the binary though a program that will randomly change a few bits in the program. (assuming CRC checking or digital signing isn't a problem). When you run your program, would it work better.
A quick google will come up with:
Evolution as a religious system has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:
I indeed googled and found this quote. The strange thing is that the author, a "David Unfred" also seems to be the author of a book rationalizing dinosaurs in the context of a literal interpretation of the Bible. So once again, we have the claim that Evolution is a religious system, but only from someone who apparently is a Bible literalist.
Did you search for "Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " Thoses are from evolutionists, the above was a description of evolution as a religion from a Christian source. But I still shown that view from:
- Professor Richard Lewontin
-Dr Michael Ruse
-Shallis, M
Yes, it would make sence for a bible believing creationist to say that dinosaurs where around. The word dinosaur was coined up in the 1800s, When the King James bible was translated they used another word, Dragon.
(copy and paste from http://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends) .’ (Job 41:1–34).
In fact, two such animals are described in the book of Job. The first is a giant vegetarian animal that may be either a Diplodocus or a Brachiosaurus: ‘Behold now behemoth which I made with thee; he eateth grass like an ox . He moveth his tail like a cedar his bones are like bars of iron, he drinketh up a river’ (Job 40:15–24). The second appears to have been some sort of large fire-breathing animal. Just as the small bombardier beetle has an explosion-producing mechanism, so the great sea-dragon may have had an explosion-producing mechanism to enable it to be a real fire breathing dragon: ‘Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook his breath kindleth coals and a flame goeth out of his mouth
The bombardier beetle is a bug in India which creates a large explosion in it's belly to scare of attackers because of the large bang and the terrible smell. The program with this beetle is that the 2 chemicals that get mixed must be perfectly done or the beetle blows himself up. Evolution in small steps can not do this because any mistakes the the beetle is dead. It must be a all or nothing thing. This also protects against mutations because if it degrades then the beetle dies too.
Now you are under the belief that dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago. Did you know that there has been discovered a T Rex with stretchy blood vessels and red blood cells found in USA. the dating on it was ~30,000 years using c14 dating (which is another argument) but that proves that dinos were around very recently. from cave painting in usa from native indians which look like brachiosaurus, to the historical stroy about st george that kill a big lizzard thing, alaxain who army in India was scared by a big thing in a cave, to temples in Lios, which had an icon looking like a 3 horn dino trisearatop (can't spell it).
I ask you to look up this dinosaur with blood cells and ask yourself how do you get dinos with red blood cells because it can't be 65Myrs because DNA can not last that long.
This shows the evolutionist is commited to the idea of naturalism no matter the evidence.
"Naturalism" is whatever the evidence is, by definition.
naturalism is the belief that of only the physical exists.
Evolution makes no prediction about anything.
Nonsense. Scientific theories make predictions and explanations by definition. I have discussed a number of predictions made by evolution, particularly the presence
Evolution doesn't make these claims nor are they implications of the theory. People do, such as yourself. And if humans aren't descended from animals, then how is it possible for us to act like animals? Such things as hedonism (and human behavior in general) really can only be explained by humans have significant common traits with animals, particularly primates (which the current theory asserts are closely related to us).
A quick google will come up with:
Evolution as a religious system has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:
1 - Space, matter and time are the infinite and the eternal trinity. It is neither being created or destroyed, only changing in form and essence;
2 - Because time is infinite, the potential of accidents to happen, for example, the formation of life from previously nonliving matter, becomes not only possible, but probable;
3 - All life that exists today is the result of these chance accidents occurring in time and giving rise to a process of continued upward development of life on Earth. Man, ape, dog, cat, ant and plant, all life, at one distant point in time arose from at least one common ancestor.
Do you believe the above statements?
I did a look around for well regarded people to quote from and not just "bums by the side of the bus stop", that is I picked the leaders and not no-bodies to quote from.
So a google will come up with:
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. ...'
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
This shows the evolutionist is commited to the idea of naturalism no matter the evidence.
Another athiests (who is well regarded)
Link: http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution
Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled ‘The New Antievolutionism’ (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science?, denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.
He appeared to admit that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous creation/creator—in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant.
Ruse said this:
‘at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’
He went on to defend this unprovable a
That's abiogenesis, but point granted. Thing is, why don't you agree?
I disagree on Evol on 2 grounds for me personally,
First is a "religionist" objection:
first and foremost is the religious claims it makes. (i.e. No God, people are just animals to be exploited, no ultimate right/wrong because everything is just signals in your brain. And that allows people to do very "wrong" things)
Second is operational science (fact and details)
where Evol relies on fact and then switches them for a lie (bait and switch). Fact is NS & Mutations, lie is it can increase information.
I'll try to give an example using the signal analogy below to describe the problems it has.
Looking through your criticism, I see that you grant natural selection, but don't appear to understand how it works. A natural though partial analogue is a communication channel that has both a organized component (which I'll call "signal") and a disorganized chaotic part (which I call "noise"). Mutation is the same as adding noise to the signal. Selection is the same as filtering out parts of the channel that don't correspond to a signal. It turns noise into information. For example, if a selection event over a generation removes half of a species, then that can add up to a bit of information.
Natural Selection in that context would be better described transmitting more of the signals (TCP packets?) at the parts of the channels which work more effectively) e.g. not transmitting on a broken line (firewall, bad router) or a line which causes reflections in the signal (fatal preditor ;-))
In this analogy, the bandwidth used in the communication is reduced to certain frequencies / tcp packets / information. So if lots of information (and noice) will be "selected" down to lesser information (and very less noise).
But for that analogy to describe Evolution, the volume of information in the signal will have to increase, so it's not just a better signal quality of say @56Kbps (analog modem), the evolution would be adsl or fibre optic cables.
Now here is where the problem is, If the channel was slowly being converted to adsl, then the second you change to adsl protocol, you have lost all information as both sides would speak a different language. (that is what happen when you try to write DNA, if it's not "~prefect" from the start, you will get a half functioning heart/lung/kidney etc... which will kill the host)
Take the jump from adsl to fibre optic, if any of the line is converted to pastic, it will lose it's signal again, those when a "evolution" happens, it must be all or nothing.
NS will do it's best to route around the "damage" cable for as much as possible.
Quite a few of the "bad" mutations aren't. For example, there's a recessive gene variant which when fully expressed causes sickle cell anemia. But when it is paired with a "normal" copy of the usual gene, confers enhanced resistance to malaria. Others simply manifest too late to be evolutionarily significant, such as genes that cause death or serious illness in people over the age of 40.
Yes, I agree, some mutations can be good (and you check I bet it's a broken gene working better?), others/(most?) can be "invisible" until they build up in the population. as mutations increase over the generations. NS only work when the mutations are visible. so errors are creaping into the human line over time. (Thats why the people in the bible lived to be crazy old of over 960 years but shorten very quickly for each generation just as expected with mutations built up)
Later we know no matter how many generations of artificial natural selection, you will never geta cat or a bird from breeding dogs together.
That hasn't been shown, especially in the presence of the full mechanics of evolution, including mutation.
I beg to differ, We have been breeding pidgins for 300y
Why Atheists require evolution:
Atheists reject God, therefore they must have everything self assembling (Aliens only move the problem to another planet). Because things dont self assemble themselves right now, it must of taken a long time to do it because we cant see it happening now.
What is Evol?
Evolution is the theory of things changing. The theory basically demands that things can improve and can gain complexity (information).
Goo to you via the zoo.
For arguments sake: yes the theory also suggests that things devolve which no one argues against .
And yes evolutionist will still need abiogenises. (The goo created life from nothing and didn't destroy it).
What doesn't work about Evol,
To understand how it doesn't work you need to understand it's components:
Evolution = Natural Selection + Mutations.
1 - Natural Selection.
Natural Selection is the "survival of the fittest". This means the the variation thats naturally "designed" in a creature will be favoured.
At first Charles thought this is all that is required. As a cell was a simple blob. Later we know no matter how many generations of artificial natural selection, you will never geta cat or a bird from breeding dogs together. NS can not be a driving agent for Goo to You.
2 - Mutations
Mutations were added as a changing agent, because NS just didn't cut it. Mutations are suppose to enable changes which NS will then select if they are good.
Natural Selection is a scientific fact, people do not argue about this. It's common sense, ever since it's was pen down in the 1600s by some monk breeding pees together. (Actually was published a couple of years before Charles' book)
The problem with NS when applying to Evolution, is the Natural Selection works against Evolution. As a reminder: Evolution is goo to you via zoo. NS will remove information/complexity in the creature, never add it. as simple 6th biology gene grid of two dogs breading:
B S
B BB BS
S SB SS
Here you have 2 dogs both carrying (B)ig and (S)mall geans for fur coats. When the breed they will have 1(25%) big coat club, 2(50%) median size clubs, and 1(25%) small fur club.
When its a clod place and only the big fur coat club survive to breed with another big fur dog, you will only very get BB,BB,BB,BB as a result. hence you have strip away from the DNA the small gean.
That is 1 way NS will work agaist Evolution.
Mutations:
They are mostly benign, meaning they dont do anything, but when they do have an effect, they are mostly bad, very bad. We know of 10,000 mutations to the human body which causes diseases like caners and liver failures etc... , and about half a dozen to what I hear are actually "good" mutations. The problem with these "good" mutations is they work by disabling functioning systems in the body which can be benifitical thus working in the opposite way that evolution needs. To date there is no good mutation in the human body recorded which increases complexity, (have you evoled wings?)
Please dont try to lump evolution the category real science. Because I would argue that atheists don't want to acknowledge the facts of evolution. (namly that it doesn't work) but they insist on it because it is their "religion".
I need the optical connection now so that my optical mouse can fully function. Without it, its way too slow!
I agree, theres no direction in the theory, i didn't mean to imply that there was, i was just makingthe statement that it can go upwards. (it can go down and to the sides) and in the case of "living" fossils, they dont change at all for 150,000,000 years. (I am not claiming that date to be right but thats an entirely different argument)
No, it does not. Evolution simply favors that which survives the best. Sometimes it does so by REDUCING complexity. A good example: frog genomes are nearly 500 times more complex than human genomes (that is - they have about 500 times as many genes as we do). Yet frogs have been around a lot longer than we are and are way more primitive. But frog DNA has to deal with all sorts of things - a tadpole in an egg needs to develop at a certain rate, that implies chemical reactions and chemical reactions are temperature sensitive. So if it gets warmer the enzymes need to have things added that slow down the reactions, if it gets colder other things are added to speed them up. Frog DNA are filled with countless little variations of "if temperature is between X and Y add enzyme Z" for every proteine in their bodies.
Humans (in fact all mammals) get to grow in a climate controlled environment so we have long since discarded all that extra DNA which egg-layers have. We've evolved to survive better by getting SIMPLER - not more complex.
You have started off in a high state in this example. For a better example would of been a low state leading to a high state. As I would just waive my hands and say look at the complex design of the frog which can be adjusted by NS.
The same almost applies to the human example, I am ignorant of the details of HSP but to me it sounds like you just describe the following:
the body's complex self repair and error correcting system, (high state),
a specification of design of the HSP (again high state, how did it get there in the first place)
A defect/feature? in the design of HSP, (Mutation maybe?) which will lead to other mutations.
That shows NS and mutations in progress. (bad mutations deleted, good (if any?) hopefully kept) For it to demonstrate "evolution", it will need to provide a functional advantage to the host and also have that encoded that into the DNA (was the source in the dna already? how would become workable now in the 2nd generation? i dont understand this. wouldn't the HSP be working in the 2nd gen and hence try to fix the problems of the accumulative mutations? ) without killing it first from cancers, etc..
Everything you said about in your "turn it around" is meaningless, that's what I said anyway, if somebody proves evolution impossible, then we'll find a NEW theory that doesn't have the flaw he proved. Falsifying evolution wouldn't prove creation, wouldn't prove God and wouldn't even SUGGEST either.
I agree, falsifying the latest beliefs in evolution wont stop it. You should not ever question evolution because that is unscientific. ;-)
But I would disagree on you that it should suggest that there is the other option that atheists rule out because they dont like it. ID is scientific, because if you saw a watch on the beach, you wouldn't say that the tides, winds and sand made it.
As for your idea that evolution isn't real science... I guess the fact that the ENTIRETY of ALL biology would collapse without it
Biology doesn't benefit at all from evolution. Vaccines, surgery, you name it, they all dont need the theory of evolution at all. They all work on the assumption that the body/cells are a complexly design integrated system. :-P
(NS & mutations are required theories for vaccines, etc...)
Easy test to try out, go to your local doctor when your arm is broken, and say, I need my arm fix, tell me doctor, what would having this broken arm do to my chances to procreate ?
Your doctor would be working from the assumption that your bones are a building framework designed (by what/whoever) so you can move, supported by a complex nervious system, surrounded by 1000s of blood vessles. But if your doctor needed to use evolution, he would then say, its a vestigial organ and it's not needed anymore, lets remove it li
C14 is suppose to be good up to between 50K to 100K. There are scientific concerns that the calibration based on Pharaohs is off because they padded their linage. which would make a dating to seem older by a little. Now the creationist scientist would have a problem in that you are making assumptions about comparing the c12/14 ratios based on current levels of today where if you read the bible, you would know it declared that there was a 1 year, 8 day flood which covered the entire earth. (yes this is possible, it's called catastrophic plait tectonic theory). That would make the dating seem much much older after 4000 years
But when the guy raised that issue he really should of explained it better as it sounded like he was just spewing s**t out.
>Note: I am a creation believing christain. I dont believe in evolution. (I do believe in natural selection)
Congratulations, so was Darwin. Now you only have 150 years of biology left to catch up on...
Actually what I think you MEANT to say is that you don't believe in abiogenesis.
Your right, I dont believe in abiogenesis
Evolution is the concept of organisms changing
I would have to disagree with you on this on a certain level,
Evolution is taught as a concept things changing but it makes the grand claim of things improving upon themselves to do it, by gaining complexity and self forming into "higher" life forms.
natural selection is one of the effects that can drive the direction of evolution and almost certainly the most important one but there are others which have been identified (mostly because they cause occasional anomalies like rapid speciation). So evolution is not quite a synonym for natural selection
I agree with you that NS isn't quite a synonym of Evol, Many things can effect the "evolution" of a creature.
Well I dont argue that things change and things degrade, neither of these need "evolution" to happen.
lets take a look at how classic evolution is suppose to work beginning with it's first formula:
E = NS
Now when Charles was alive, he was limited to technology back then so the cell was just a glob. It seem very possible that NS could explain the differences in all the creatures but as we know now NS can only work so far within the bounds of the creature. For example, over 300years of breading pidgins and not a single chicken has emerged. (Joke on chicken and the egg)
That is why then they need mutations to act as a changing agent so new information (leg, wing, etc...) could enter the gene pool.
E = NS + M
Now with modern science we know that if you stand infront of nuclear blast and absorb all thoses beneficial mutations, you will not become the hulk. In fact, we know of over 10,000 mutations which causes cancers, blood sicknesses which are mostly fatal, yet only a handful of good mutations which all involve disabling functional structures in the body (devolving can be a benefit).
Now here we can see how NS will fight against M has much as possible. Normally M is harmless. but if the level of mutations build up, they can then effect the creature. NS would try to cull any creature if a very bad mutation but NS can't filter out minor bad mutations if they don't effect the host too much. The effect is bad mutations build up the gene pool to lethal levels. You wouldn't expect people living around a nuclear plant that leaks radiation to become super fit humans, you would expect them to suffer sickness getting worst in each generation.
Charles became an atheist. I think it happened when one of his children died, but I could be wrong on that.
I would very much doubt if a person could think up a way of how abiogenisis/evolution could happen without deluding himself to a great amount.
Well, if you're faith is worth having at all... NOTHING. So you figure out another of the tools in God's toolbox, if that means you can't believe in God your faith was worthless in the first place. For those of us who don't believe now, it will be just further proof that there's nothing we can't adequately explain WITHOUT a creator.
I will not put my faith into "fictional science". (Thats story telling like evol and big bang). Thats something that changes like the wind, here one day, something else the next. May I propose the exact idea back to you,
What if a creationist scientist proved that evolution couldn't happen, What if a creationist scientist showed an alternative to all the evol theory, what then? well NOTHING. you just ignore them and continue believing in what you do like what is always happening.
What I should of said in my original post was that you do
I am 100% confidant that he believes he can make cells from metal. But reality is different. In organic cells, the simplest cell is very very complex. Take for example the ATP synthase - the world's tiniest motor, which is a engine which is compulsory for all life. Every cell has 1000s of these as they convert protons into a transportable energy molecule called ATP. For any cell to be manufacture, he must make many many dependant systems to work together before anything can get off the ground with natural selection or "evolution".
I would be very interested in seeing how far and how complex he can make these systems. IMHO: he faces 2 problems,
1 is he doesn't have the technology to produce replicators, and all the systems needed,
2 if he very smarter than every other human on earth in orders of magnitudes then people will say:
2.1 - He hasn't shown evolution because he built complex nano-bot systems, they didn't evol, they were built.
or
2.2 He proves evolution, look at the new life forms, (and they ignore all the nano tech in it, like batteries, circuits, engines, resource transport trucks, error correcting nano nano robots, etc...) Atheist already ignore all the tech in organic cells so it's seems like this event will be more probable.
Also I dont count crystal structures in either rock / salt / poly -metal - oxide - whatever, to be "living".
Note: I am a creation believing christain. I dont believe in evolution. (I do believe in natural selection)
The article talks from the assumption of long ages and evolution. It assumes about the humans mutating from (insert type) monkeys. The Christian view is that we did not come of any type of monkey or ancestry ape. Therefor if you are trying to map the human gnome to any monkey/ape you will require large changes to the information in the dna. I remember reading that even atheists claim that from a mutating gene we all came from a human in Africa (although they date it at ~40K years)
You should all of hear how chims are 98% human, how many of you know that we are 95% horse and 95% mouse, 50% banana.
If you want to hear from what "true" (take it however you want) creation/Christian scientist then take a look at what they are really saying // scroll down to the biology section, // If you want to know the facts behind mutions // thats just a simple search to see the 98% chim claim was bad science.
http://creation.com/qa#faqs
http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers
http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome
They do not believe the assumptions behind evolution. When your eyes are open to examining the evidence yourself you will see the weakness of the evolution claim.
So next time you try to bash a Christian as not knowing anything, first see what they say about the subject.
And yes I do interpret Genesis as literal history as it is written in such a way. It starts the foundation of jewdo/christain reliegon and if a Christian can't take that as a fact, they can't take anything else in the bible as fact. It is important to understand why "we" believe in the things we do, Christianity is logical system and not something to that should be just "believed" in like the tooth fiery or "santa claws" (he did exist in 12th cen, so say that to your 5 yr then say he dead, lol >:-) )
p.s. There is no apple in the garden! we dont know wtf it looks like! so someone draw an apple instead, just be glad it wasn't a durian fruit.
Cheers
the 100 acids was an example shown minimum complexity. for any cell to function it needs to have certain mimimum level of functionality. Like how a mouse trap needs 4 parts to work, the base, latch, spring, trigger. If you take any part of theses away, the trap can not go off. And the same will apply to any cell. (well, I've heard some cells and degenerate so much that they are leaching off other cells to survive) Like in a car, if the cars doesn't have wheels, or doesn't have a cam shaft, or doesn't have a pistons then the car will not drive. There is a minimum level required for a cell, that was my argument for abiogenesis.
I've noticed you mention that shorter combinations can combine, and thats a big problem for evolution because you can't randomly mix senquences together because either they produce something which doesnt work,or they kill the chain like in left vs right handed proteins.
And example off the top of my head is hemoglobin, I have a memory hearing that it's is first generated as a ~1000 long protein string folded into a 3d shape. This shape has no functionality. Another protein then shaves off part of the 3d shape and you were left with ~700 proteins, this happens 4 times until you get the function red blood cell at 564 proteins. Now there are a few (6 i think, i am probably be wrong) variations of this which are genetic blood disorders.
My wife is calling me, good bye Virg.
hmmm interesting link, It will take me a while to read it. thank you.
I can't see how any amount of time can make something possible. If you extract back, the theory suggests chemical evolution of a "simple" cell. which even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein coding genes are required to be wholly operational for life to begin. The famous muller experament (in ~1957 I think) shows a chemical trap required to get proteins but in that shows the enormous problems of the information. For life, aka the simplest of self sustaining cells require all the proteins to be either left or right handed. If a left protein attaches to a right protein then the chain is terminated. all of the human body is right handed. The experiments also require that there be no water and no oxygen in the environment. DNA at 0 degrees break down in under 10,000 years and all the goo stories I've heard are "hot" pools where the proteins break down even faster. (at 100' I remember it being 90minues.) I remember reading about a scientist creating 2 of the RNA molecules in just under 13 steps which each step was then filtered because the process in each steps produces side products which are "fatal". e.g. left and right handed proteins. So saying there are long periods of time is actually harmful to the process of chemicals self assembling themselves. Since I am holiday and board out of my mind, I'll try and google for this book.
btw: .website but it dosn't matter that you dont believe the christian stuff which is usually at the bottom of the webpages. Read about the science articles and come to your own conclusions they will show in science things in the different light and will make you think.
A resource I look at often is the website http://Creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers. that link contains alot of information many people just dont know about. They are a "christian"
just a quick search of that site and i can quote this: which is the odds chemically of just 100 amino acids where the simplest known is 480 proteins.
what is the probability of getting just 100 amino acids lined up in a functional manner? Since there are 20 different amino acids involved, it is (1/20)100, which is 10^130. To try to get this in perspective, there are about 10^80 fundamental particles (electrons, etc) in the universe. If every one of those particles were an experiment at getting the right sequence with all the correct amino acids present, every microsecond of 15 billion years, that amounts to 4.7 x 10^103 experiments. We are still 10^27 experiments short of getting an even chance of it happening. In other words, this is IMPOSSIBLE!
But I'll will look at the book mention above, I just hope some of you people will read the things I said from the other side of the fence.
I am on the other side of the fence, a creationist.
Evolution does require alot of belief. Most people belief that evolution is just the changes of an organism, like the how the pepper moths in england with 2 colors or the beaks in finches. If that was true that would make me an evolutionist.
But evolution contains a half true which will make it every believing until to understand and break down it components.
For evolution to work you will need a selecting agent and a changing agent.
For me this is how I see Evolution.
Evol = Natural Selection + Mutation.
Now I've talked about this on /. before but no one is interested.
Both NS and Mutations are hostile to evolution. For evolution to work in the context of goo to you via zoo, it must have the capability to information.
With NS this will specialize the variation in the "creature" . e.g. all dogs comes from wolfs (evols & creationists agree on that) due to man's natural selection, we get Great Danes and chiwawas, it doesn't matter how many times the chiwawas breeds, you never get a great dane out of them. the information for being big has been bread out of them.
Thats why mutations are required in the formula. You need a changing agent. But the problem with mutations is that the vast majority of them are negative, with only a very few being positive for the host. and of those being positive none of them invovled increase in the dna, just disabling of functionality which just happen to a good outcome.
E.g. of good mutations which are actually mutations which disabled working functionality.(again thats the opposite way for evolution)
westerners who can drink milk have a mutation which stops a gene normally being turned off as a baby.
theres a beetle off a windy island off Italy somewhere where because there wings are disabled, they dont get blown out to see. (the main land bugs can fly)
The really muscular cows in Europe. (of course NS in the wild would kill them off cause they need to humans to help give birth)
So I argree that Evolution should be taught, along with all it flaws about how it can't explain goo to you via zoo happens. because as of now it is being taught like it was a fact without all the flaws in the theory.
To summarize:
Evol = NS + Mut.
NS = fact but works against Evol
Mutations is fact, but works in all known cases against evol (doesn't actually has to be bad mutations in rare cases)
Evol is a half true story which means its a fabrication and shouldn't be used to darken the name of science.
Ask yourself does what I have written make sense to you. As I hope I have reached some people with understand as why I will not believe evol and why (some) creationists are not crazy nuttys and actually understand the issues at work here and come to there own conclusion and not what others say to believe.
I can just imagine how this will work,
I am truly sorry for your loss Miss Gottschalk, but your husband body was found by our flying vulture team. He was floating in the river and his left eye was eaten by one of our teammates.
So they assume an age based on the size / color of the star and then based on that assumption they will use the spin of the star as a guide to its age. This assumes that the older stars will always spin at different speeds from younger stars. Given that older stars will expand, and therefor be larger so will spin slower to keep it's angular momentum this raises the question
So how would they know the starting spin of the star?
if we have 2 "young" stars, 1 spins 1 per year, the other 1 per month, when they get old they will obviously spin at different speeds.
Also, does anyone know how long it takes the Sun to rotate? I remember it has 2% of the angular momentum of the solar system but the bulk of the mass,
(Warning, my christian troll views coming up, cover your hears if you don't like whats coming up)
Something to make you think:
Why does the Sun have 2% of the angular momentum if by the gas cloud theory says that it should be in the center of the solar system and therefor like a ballerina when it's arms are in, have the most angular momentum, but the Sun almost have none. the only theory I could think of is if the cloud wasn't spinning, but in that scenario, the planets would just fall into the Sun. Note: Angular momentum isn't effect by the size / mass of the Sun. The sun could be heavy or larger, the spin will be slower but the angular momentum would be the same.
I am waiting for rule 34.
http://xkcd.com/305/
"By harnessing the power of tiny waves dancing in an electron sea"
I am glad something came out of the tidal wave and nuclear plant.
(I am sorry for Japan and surrounding areas)
It's all very nice having a super computer race, but what I want to know is does it run Linux?
I like your idea, I propose that we get NASA to lunch a man object over to the moon to check out your theory. Because for all we know those Flying Spaghetti Monsters are terrorist with downloaded music from *AA with HDs full of child porn.
Wont someone think of the children!
You just got to learn to speak politicians language if you want to get your way. (I actually would like a man mission back to the moon in my life time).
When I needed a coworker to her job I would email BCC to the boss just to let him in on whats going on and to at as prove later on if required.
It covered my butt a couple of times because since I am the "tech" at my work, I could easily fake an email, so by sending at the same time my butt is covered if a dispute occurs and the coworker never received my deleted email. (I hate people playing politics at work)
And on the plus side, the boss would think I am hard working and motivated while the other is troublesome.
I would have to disagree with you,
1 Evolution isn't a fact. It's a theory/story based on fact and "optimistically" reinterpreted into what it is.
2 The moon showing the same face to earth is because the moon is gravitationally locked to the earth. This happens when there is an imbalance in the orbiting object and the heavy side is pulled towards the earth/star. This doesn't mean the Moon was caught by the Earth.
As for 1,
Evolution is the theory that simple life/cells build up complexity into better life forms. This is done by using 2 facts,
1 Natural Selection.
NS is where the fittest survives to the next generation. But NS is the exact opposite of Evolution.
Evolution is from simple to complex, but NS is complex (in information) to simple (less information).
This can mean the lifeform survives better. and example of how NS is opposite to Evol is dogs/wolfs.
Everyone agrees all dogs came from wolfs. So the dna of wolfs contain both Big dogs and small dogs.
When they bread, you will get some of the dna of both parents into all the children but not all the possibilities.
So if you get 2 small dogs, you will never get a big dog out of them. Same for blue eyes and brown eyes in humans.
heres a overly simple chart / view:
Bs Bs DNA of 2 wolfs containing both "big" and "small" geanes
BB Bs Bs ss There children containing the variation of the DNA.
BB BB What happens when you get only Big dogs breading is the result of only Big dogs.
BB BB BB BB
So Natural Selection will reduce information, and is the opposite to evolution.
2 Mutations
Mutations are mistakes in the dna where there shouldn't be the normal variation. Normally DNA will detect and remove errors in the code but when something isn't corrected, you get the mutation. The vast majority of mutations do not show there effect during the breading time of the lifeform. So mutations are passed down from generation to generation without notice. Usually when a mutation is seen it shows up as a very bad thing. There are a few exception to this. E.g. Theres an island near Italy where the bugs have no wings because of a mutation but that loss of information meant they were kept on the windy island instead of being blown away.
Viruses & bacteria do not have the DNA correcting abilities like we do, (and ignoring the cross breading that they do), they are not getting any more information when they mutate. But when they mutate they often lose something information and become weaker compared to there wild cousins. but due to the change in the structure of there surfaces our bodies find it harder to attack them. (natural selection going on there, not Evolution).
Evolution doesn't make predictions that creations can't also explain. It depends how you interpret the data given. But when it comes to benefits, if you assume the human cell is a super complex machine, with all it's complexities, you will get further than thinking it's a "simple" mistakenly assemble thing. Like how Evolution pushed the idea of "junk" DNA consisting of 95% of us yet only discovering recently that all of it is used. That is one of the greatest failure of Evolutions predictions which has cost all of us alot of time which could of been used in researched.