Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Heneni]

The good news is...that its probably more likely that god exists then it is for this to happen:

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Who knows?

and who cares....

 

[Sleepr]

The good news is...that its probably more likely that god exists then it is for this to happen:

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

Are you looking for meaningful thought-out responses? I can only assume not. If you're going to quote statistical evidence, please cite your sources. Otherwise, it gives the impression that you may be cherry-picking information from less than credible sources. Is that what you're doing?

 

[Sleepr]

The good news is...that its probably more likely that god exists then it is for this to happen:

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

On topic: To address this point, I'll offer the following thoughts.

The best case scenario to support your statistic would be the that the probability is based on the simplest of cells that we have knowledge of. There is nothing to indicate that those are the "original" to have been formed. There are quite possibly, even likely, simpler cells that served as evolutionary precursors to those that we can identify. We have no knowledge of those cells, but can identify their possibility. Thus, any statistical analysis applied to the probability that a cell, which we have current knowledge of, can spontaneously form, is nothing more than mental masturbation.

Mind you, this is only the first of several problems to be identified with the statistical analysis you provided.

 

[Jose Fly]

Heneni,

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

Why do you think chemistry is a random process that occurs "by chance"?

 

[painted wolf]

Polonium halos...
Polonium Halo FAQs
Creation Science Rebuttals, Polonium Halos Refuted
Tiny Mystery Home Page

is that cell a prokaryote or eukaryote? I'm willing to bet its a eukaryote.
and a modern one at that.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Heneni

If you take a few points in recent years and extrapolate from them, I agree; the curve will probably hit zero at some point in the recent (in geologic terms) past. However, we already knew this: the magnetic poles flip direction every 50,000 years on average (though the interval is very irregular). We can see this by the changes in crystal direction of igneous rocks. I discussed geomagnetic reversal a bit more in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/59823-if-age-earth-6000-years.html

So... yes, the Earth's magnetic field is variable. Yes, its strength drops to zero occasionally. Neither one of these facts points to a young Earth.

And as was discussed at length in the thread I linked to above, there's overwhelming evidence all around us against a young Earth.

The good news is...that its probably more likely that god exists then it is for this to happen:

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

Only if the configuration of each protein is independent. Do you have any reason to assume that it would be?

And what is the probability of an "assemblage" occuring by chance that's capable of deliberately creating what you describe as a minimal cell?

It boggles my mind that some people can't see the inconsistency in suggesting that the most complex thing imaginable popping into existence all on its own (or just being there "all along") is a reasonble explanation for the "problem" that something as complex as life is supposedly too complex to occur all on its own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On topic: To address this point, I'll offer the following thoughts.

The best case scenario to support your statistic would be the that the probability is based on the simplest of cells that we have knowledge of. There is nothing to indicate that those are the "original" to have been formed. There are quite possibly, even likely, simpler cells that served as evolutionary precursors to those that we can identify. We have no knowledge of those cells, but can identify their possibility.

As well as the existence of long protein chains.

I think the "statistic" that Heneni gave would be for a scenario where you take a single one of each protein in question, put it in a jar, shake it once, and see if you get a cell. OTOH, if you have large parts of the surface of the Earth covered in groups of proteins and let it mix continuously for a billion years or so, the chances of life emerging increase dramatically.

 

[methylatedghosts]

LOL this is even better than SMBC comics!!!

 

[Heneni]

Heneni,


Why do you think chemistry is a random process that occurs "by chance"?

I dont.

You need a few things.

1. The right molecules
2. An electron configuration condusive for a reaction to take place
3. Collisions
4. Molecules with enough kinetic energy
5. Collisions with the right orientation
6. Activation energy

And you need god to make it into a living being. I can make plastic everyday.

 

[Heneni]

LOL this is even better than SMBC comics!!!

Why dont you say something like....


evolution is a hoax because...or
evolution is fact because....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont.

You need a few things.

1. The right molecules

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen were abundant on the early Earth. Check.

2. An electron configuration condusive for a reaction to take place

Judging by modern-day organic chemistry, a probable check.

3. Collisions

Looks like the temperature would be high enough for the raw materials to all be liquids or gases, so check.

4. Molecules with enough kinetic energy

Well, we'd have several energy sources, for example:

- the Sun
- lightning
- heat from the Earth's core

So, plausible check.

5. Collisions with the right orientation

If you've got enough of them, you'll have some with the right orientation, so check.

6. Activation energy

Again, plenty of external energy being fed into the system... well below what modern-day organic chemistry says we'd need, so check.

It looks pretty likely that all these things would be present on a pre-living Earth, so what makes abiogenesis so improbable in your mind?

And you need god to make it into a living being. I can make plastic everyday.

Any scientific reason for this last one?

 

[painted wolf]

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Heni,

If you don't think chemistry occurs randomly "by chance", then why did you state:

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 4,478,296 .

If we agree chemistry is non-random, then your asserted probability is meaningless.

 

[Heneni]

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen were abundant on the early Earth. Check.

Abundant...yes maybe. But also conveniently abundant to make this evolution theory work?

Judging by modern-day organic chemistry, a probable check.

Probable?

Looks like the temperature would be high enough for the raw materials to all be liquids or gases, so check.

Looks like?

Well, we'd have several energy sources, for example:

- the Sun
- lightning
- heat from the Earth's core

So, plausible check.

Ok..ill give you this one. (the sun) If lighting caused the first 'chemical reaction' then lighting must still be chemically reacting species on this earth and transforming them into different beings. And the heat of the earth is not likely to be the reason for evolution today...

If you've got enough of them, you'll have some with the right orientation, so check.

IF?

And if all these things happened and started us off..why cant we just get it started agian? Its not that simple.

 

[Heneni]

Heni,

If you don't think chemistry occurs randomly "by chance", then why did you state:
[/font]
If we agree chemistry is non-random, then your asserted probability is meaningless.

Um...i think your probably not on the same wavelength as me here.:sad:

 

[painted wolf]

obviously cells don't do chemistry...

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Or maybe i dont fall for the evolution theory. Which is mostly what it is.. A theory.

We really need a "facepalm" smiley. This was even already explained in this very thread, and you still refuse to see it. Calling it "just a theory" shows that you are ignorant of what a scientific theory really is. Please learn before continuing. (You can just follow the link in FH's post on the very first page)

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

To save face...this is what evolutionist did:

Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, many online Scientific websites that list the element Pulonium 214 to be found on Planet earth. On that page they share evidence that Polonium 214 is in fact a chemical profile that can and has been recorded by many scientists.

Any comment painted wolf?

Ooo..oo! I have a comment! This is ridiculous propaganda. If you believe it in the first place, we're obviously not going to convince you otherwise.

 

[Jose Fly]

Heni,

Apparently so, because if one asserts, "The probability of X forming by random chance is..." and then admits that the process by which X forms is non-random, there's not much to talk about.

 

[Heneni]

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen were abundant on the early Earth. Check.


Judging by modern-day organic chemistry, a probable check.


Looks like the temperature would be high enough for the raw materials to all be liquids or gases, so check.


Well, we'd have several energy sources, for example:

- the Sun
- lightning
- heat from the Earth's core

So, plausible check.


If you've got enough of them, you'll have some with the right orientation, so check.


Again, plenty of external energy being fed into the system... well below what modern-day organic chemistry says we'd need, so check.

It looks pretty likely that all these things would be present on a pre-living Earth, so what makes abiogenesis so improbable in your mind?


Any scientific reason for this last one?

Just a question...are you saying that organic molecules were the 'starting' chemicals for evolution?