Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From all the organic molecules and compounds that bombarded the Earth in the form of asteroids and meteorites during Earths formation. As well as from the stardust and gases that were responsible for the formation of Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everliving
CONCLUSION. While many insist that an evolutionary origin of life is an indisputable fact, others are not satisfied with the answers that evolution provides regarding how life began and how life developed.
Sounds like a personal problem to me if one cannot make sense of the evidence.
CONCLUSION. While many insist that an evolutionary origin of life is an indisputable fact, others are not satisfied with the answers that evolution provides regarding how life began and how life developed.
So you begin a post by asking "how did living things develop," and follow it with 7 or 8 paragraphs about how living things evolved. And conclude by saying that some are not satisfied with the answers that evolution provides "regarding how life began." Thus rendering your entire post complete nonsense, because EVOLUTION HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN. Evolutionary science makes absolutely no attempt to address the question of origins, any more than Shakesperean scholars devote their careers to designing warp drives. Its like someone starting a thread about biblical passages, and people keep popping in with, "No, the quran does not say that." IT IS TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPICS.
You people have. No. CLUE. What you are talking about, because you don't even understand what the subject is. Every time you post what you think are these decisively logical arguments, all you demonstrate is that you are completely, absolutely, utterly ignorant of the topic you're debating, or that you think you're debating. The only thing you're really proving is that your rejection of evolution has nothing to do with the science of it (as you try to claim) because the science is lightyears over your head. You're only proving that your rejection of the science is nothing but a kneejerk reaction that comes from feeling that your faith is threatened.
Here is a nice simple lab experiment demonstrating evolution.
I did something similar with silk worms. I bred them to have fully developed wings and to all hatch at the same time.
Quote:
Evolution cannot explain how each cell "knows" what to become and where it should move within the organism.
What makes you think that? Evolution is not such a great mystery. It may be difficult for some to grasp but really, given the billions of years (and remember that billions of generations initially reproduced each year), the process is quite simple. Some may claim they understand concepts like zero and infinity but they actually are understanding it mathematically. We cannot grasp the meaning of billions or trillions (let alone Brazillions). How many stars do you think we can see with the naked eye? About 5000. That's all! Yet we know there some one hundred billion stars in our galaxy alone and an estimated 225 billion galaxies in the observable universe. My point is, big numbers are incomprehensible to us. Given the time scale and shear numbers involved, evolution is a simple process. I caused silk worms to 'evolve' in four generations. OK, that was through intelligent 'design' but nature would do that without any intelligence involved.
By the way, sexual attraction can be a far more powerful evolutionary factor than mere survival of the fittest at times (in some species).
Nonetheless the tissue is soft tissue. The tissue is not rock. If the dino was in the ground millions of years I doubt it would still have soft tissue no matter what spin your friends say.
Are you talking about a different dinosaur soft tissue event than the article I posted just recently?
This is the heading of the article and notice the date: Scientists just found soft tissue inside a dinosaur fossil. Here's why that's so exciting.
Updated by Joseph Stromberg on June 9, 2015, 11:00 a.m. ET @josephstromberg joseph@vox.com
But what's so exciting about this new study is that the fossils used, unlike Schweitzer's, aren't particularly well-preserved. Susannah Maidment, one of the paleontologists who worked on the paper, called them "crap" specimens. If they have preserved soft tissue inside them, it could be a sign that thousands of other fossils in museum collections do too.
You are still completely out of your depth. Yes, you till do not understand what you are talking about and Yes, I am talking to you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
"All you had to do was to read the article to see if it stated that." "I'm allowed to quote myself all day if I want."
Sure you know they are millions of years old. I guess you never saw the dino's etc. on the columns I think in Cambodia in a temple complex dated just eleven hundred years ago. http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVER...ia_Temple.html
LoL
If you say so.
Sure, uh huh.
Still the same old incomprehension. Still the same old refusal to listen, learn and understand. Still the same old denial.
If we must deal with the Ta Phrom Stegosaur (Yes, In Cambodia) it probably is not a Stegosaur, but is some other critter with three roundels (of the foliage type found in the other carvings) above it which look vaguely like three stegosaur plates, though nothing like the actual ones. And if Stegosaur was a living fossil up to the time of 13th c Angkor (they were the only ones still using chariots, too) how would that disprove evolution?
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia- Microevolution "is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift." As I stated I am not discussing Microevolution. By "evolution," I mean "Macroevolution". My focus is on change that occurs at or above the level of species.
WHAT SOME SAY.
Life arose spontaneously from non-living matter.
WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER.
Scientists know more about the chemistry and molecular structure of life than ever before. Yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates nonliving matter from even the simplest living cell.
Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey, interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. Evolution cannot explain the source of the information.
Protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung together in a specific sequence. Additionally, the protein molecule must fold into specific three-dimensional shape for it to be useful. Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. "Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins," writes physicist Paul Davies, "it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone."
CONCLUSION.
After decades of research in virtually all branches of science, the fact remains that life comes only from preexisting life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Simple not true. We know without a shadow of a doubt how to define life.
Are you wanting to switch the topic to how life originated? Or stick with Evolution?
Everliving, you have to ask yourself why you are switching from the evolution (how species developed over millions of years) v.s Creationism (how species were all made at the same time) and bring up the origins of life question. Even if God did make the first life, that has nothing to do with whether the evidence is persuasive that species evolved over millions of years.
It is on a par with the doorstep evangelist ploy when their arguments for the Bible of the historicity of Jesus are shot down "Well, who made everything, then?" It is irrelevant to whether Evolution theory or Genesis is best related to the evidence.
P.s "Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins," writes physicist Paul Davies, "it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone."
and
Human beings are conscious and self-aware, have the ability to think and reason, and possess moral qualities such as generosity, self-sacrifice, and a sense of right and wrong. Random mutations and natural selection cannot explain the existence of these unique qualities of the human mind.
These two points (aside from 'some are not satisfied,which is irrelevant - none of us are satisfied and want to find answers to the question. Some certainly use this as a pretext for dismissing the whole theory because - and make no mistake about this - it contradict Genesis) are false, because the evolutionary process is not by chance alone. It happens because of known and ondeed predictable processes. The argument from incredulity seems (where it is not simply dismissal) to be based on ignorance of the physical processes involved or an inherent bias derived from a belief that the result - us - was intended.
The other is some doubt - perhaps legitimate - about the sophistication of the human mind. A moment's thought will show that this is as irrelevant to whether species (which, let me clarify) do not have this power of reasoning evolved over milliobns of years or were made all in one go as the 'how did life start?' question.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-11-2015 at 05:24 AM..
Your entire overlong post is nothing but a cut and paste.
Any reader can simply paste "114,455,823 to 114,455,838" into a search engine
and see that this oft-repeated phraseology is from Dr. Ken Miller.
There are, however, detractors !
-There is only one reverse telomeric sequence (CCCTAA) within 1200 base pairs of that location
-There should be a total of 402 telomeric sequences
-Only forward telomeric sequences (TTAGGG) on one side
-And only reverse telomeric sequences on the other side
-A true telomere has anywhere from 5000 to 15000 unbroken telomeric repeats
-The selection range should only show 1-4% of the total telomere
-This is not the predicted location of fusion.
-Purported location is BP 114,455,823-114,455,838
-Predicated location is BP 114,360,509-114,360,510
-A difference of 95,313 BP
-Analyzed BP 114,454,623-114,457,040 (~1200 BP on either side of the purported fusion site)
-ICR (Institute for Creation Research) analyzed BP 114,360,258-114,361,055 (798 BP around predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward telomeric sequences and 43 reverse (53 total)
-There should be 133 telomeric sequences total
-Analyzed BP 114,359,309-114,361,710 (~1200 BP other side of the predicted fusion site)
-There are 10 forward-telomeric sequences and 44 reverse (54 total)
-There should be 400 telomeric sequences total
-Why is the purported location so far from the predicted location?
-The predicted location looks more like a fusion took place there than the purported location
-The purported location looks nothing like a fusion
-The only possible conclusion is that the paper lied about what was in that location
-This is only a small portion of the evidence
He sums up with this conclusion:
- All of the evidence for the fusion was cherry picked. (There is a reference in the video for further evidence)
-There is no actual evidence for a fusion
-Evolution is flat out wrong
-Humans and apes do not share a common ancestry Science 101 - Creation vs Evolution - Evolution Fairytale Forum
This looks like complete garbage to me. Cherry picking a numerical mind experiment that supposedly refutes the evolutionary process which he KNOW actually does occur to refute this or that example of evolution looks quite wrong. Though I would have to see what (if anything) the purported (that is by Mr Miller) location of telomeric sequences remote from where he argues they ought to be (this makes no sense so that why it sounds like garbage) and fusion (never mind "Cold fusion" which -if it means anything an all, is pure well poisoning - trying to argue by word association - that evolution is as false as Cold Fusion) seeming to have nothing to do with evolution through mutation.
We have had some of the ICR experiments before. Without exception they have been refuted and have had to climb down. I believe the attempt to disprove uniformity in argon radiation decay rates was the last.
If there is any sense on this cut and past job, please do explain.
P.s
From Casey’s rebuttal:
“…Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors. Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous, perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans.
Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But all of our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration should have resulted in a non-viable mutant, or non-viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous.
If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.”
I'm not sure that it isn't a wrangle between two ID proponents about chromosomal fusion. In any case the old claim that mutation will result in non -viable offspring is wrong.It has to be a persistent misrepresentation by Creationism.
I am sure that you don't really understand the science involved. I am sure that you simply found something that looked like it disproved evolution and just copied and pasted it. It seems to have appeared third hand on a particularly flatulent facebook exchange or the like.
Ok digging further, it seems that Ken Miller did a presentation on chromosomal fusion which has been jumped on by various Creationists under the I/D cloak and have used a wide range of arguments to discredit the idea from saying he is a lawyer, rather than a scientist to the old 'mutation results in infertility' argument, with appeals to the authority of Behe and Demsky, determined in a court of law to be neither credible scientifically or arguing for anything but Genesis literalism.
Even if there were valid criticisms to make about the chromosomic fusion mechanism, that is merely questions. It is not and cannot be a debunking of a process that we know happens, let alone a refutation of evolution theory at large.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-11-2015 at 05:11 AM..
Eusebius on preserved soft tissue "But what's so exciting about this new study is that the fossils used, unlike Schweitzer's, aren't particularly well-preserved. Susannah Maidment, one of the paleontologists who worked on the paper, called them "crap" specimens. If they have preserved soft tissue inside them, it could be a sign that thousands of other fossils in museum collections do too."
It ought to be obvious why this is no more relevant than the old T Rex soft tissue thing. If the T Rex soft tissue is no more than fossilized soft tissue and therefore no problem for deep time, then recent fossils, whether good quality fossils or poor ones is no more relevant. The idea that there could be more preserved soft tissue in fossils was made at the time. That there is a recent article on it makes it mo more relevant than the T Rex one and, if Eusebius has any knowledge of the subject -or indeed, of the debate - this would not need to be said.
Eusebius on preserved soft tissue "But what's so exciting about this new study is that the fossils used, unlike Schweitzer's, aren't particularly well-preserved. Susannah Maidment, one of the paleontologists who worked on the paper, called them "crap" specimens. If they have preserved soft tissue inside them, it could be a sign that thousands of other fossils in museum collections do too."
It ought to be obvious why this is no more relevant than the old T Rex soft tissue thing. If the T Rex soft tissue is no more than fossilized soft tissue and therefore no problem for deep time, then recent fossils, whether good quality fossils or poor ones is no more relevant. The idea that there could be more preserved soft tissue in fossils was made at the time. That there is a recent article on it makes it mo more relevant than the T Rex one and, if Eusebius has any knowledge of the subject -or indeed, of the debate - this would not need to be said.
But the fact is that if soft tissue is found in these dinosaurs, it is highly doubtful they are hundreds of millions of years old or even a million years old.
Now then, either those ruins are many millions of years old when humans walked the earth with dinosaurs or the ruins are over a thousand years old and humans had run ins with dinosaurs in their day. I won't say which is which. Since you know everything about everything, we will await your self-made authority on the matter.
In any case the old claim that mutation will result in non -viable offspring is wrong.It has to be a persistent misrepresentation by Creationism.
Give me a true example of beneficial mutuation that has taken place in human beings.
Make clear that it occurred in a progressive, not entropic fashion which evolutionism demands.
I'm not talking about mere "viable offspring", such as Chernobyl victims having children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I am sure that you simply found something that looked like it disproved evolution and just copied and pasted it. It seems to have appeared third hand on a particularly flatulent facebook exchange or the like.
I posted two links which refuted the cut & paste job of the overly long post which
I was responding to directly. The content of the post I responded to has been re-pasted all over
the internet for years. My only aim was to show that Ken Miller has been refuted
and his claims are highly questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Even if there were valid criticisms to make about the chromosomic fusion mechanism, that is merely questions. It is not and cannot be a debunking of a process that we know happens, let alone a refutation of evolution theory at large.
None of it proves common ancestry or evolution.
The comments section here has some interesting responses.
Not every post in this thread has to be an original scientific thesis.
If that's the standard, there wouldn't be many posts at all here.
Evolutionary theory does not deserve to be refuted.
It's own lack of empirical proof refutes itself, regardless of
how many scientists make asses out of themselves repeating their
assumptions and seeking confirmation bias instead of being neutral scientists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, you till do not understand what you are talking about 
and Yes, I am talking to you 
