Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On more failure for random, positive mutations...
A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views
There is NO DEBATE about evolution.
On more failure for random, positive mutations...
A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution - Evolution News & Views
There is NO DEBATE about evolution.
Congratulations!! You just received the Loki "Stick your head in the stand" and "If I don't look at it maybe it won't see me" awards. You obviously didn't miss the bus, but caught a ride on the short bus and missed the science. If you want to choose to believe in fairytales that is fine. But don't come on here pretending to be interested in the truth.
I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
You sure are confused. The event that everyone knows that is never happened is a spontaneous random formation of a complex protein. And the fact that Meyer was calculating the odds of that happening shows him as a dishonest person.
We have all reasons to believe that the life started when the first self replicating RNA appeared. It could have been created by a 30-40 nucleotides long RNA.
Natural selection.
■ Statistically, the chance of forming even one “useful” RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
Well, so why doesn't he show it? Similar to the way Meyer showed that the random formation of complex protein is very unlikely?
Also "very unlikely" does not mean it never happens. There are 3 * 100 * 10^22 stars in the Universe. That is a lot of Earth like planets and a lot of chemical reactions that took place during last billions years. Plus, if there are/were other Universes, who knows how many of them -- so it is possible that we were just lucky. By this logic you can explain any miracle. For example, if in the next minute you will fall right through the concrete floor you are sting on, it might be because you were just lucky (or unlucky) to live on some planet of some universe at the moment when this freak accident occurred (because although it is very unlikely, it is possible according to Quantum Mechanics). Life on Earth could be such an unlikely accident.
Multiple Universe Theory=Fairytale
First, you obviously didn't listen to Meyers argument because he never calculates probabilities of proteins. He calculates probabilities of amino acids forming
Second: "the relevance of ribozyme engineering to naturalistic theories of the origin of life is doubtful at best, primarily because of the necessity for intelligent intervention in the synthesis of the randomized RNA"
That's not even BS, it is simply laughable.Please help me understand how RNA became DNA became comples blueprint for complex Amino Acids became complex functional proteins.
Other than fairy tale speculations
Without exception, every argument ever presented by anybody for the existence of a creator has been an exercise in question-begging and/or special pleading.ALL THE USUAL USELESS DRIBBLE DELETED.
Then do it. Just don't submit some question-begging and/or special-pleading argument and insist that it is valid. Ok?
It has already been done and shown to you. You are just in TOTAL DENIAL.
No it's not. not in any manner what-so-ever. The evidence presented to support the Intelligent Design argument REQUIRES unquestioned acceptance and belief in the existence of a designer--it is question-begging. The Intelligent Design argument REQUIRES unquestioned acceptance and belief in a Designer that is exempt from the validating criteria that his design requires--it is special pleading.The argument is based on the same scientific method Lyell and Darwin used.
Oh. I see you were confused by the question marks.Really? Do we have to start with everything that posits that phenotype is the result of genotype, and that an organism's genotype is determined neither by the organism's act of will or behavior? Is that where we have to begin? High-school biology class?Please enlighten me. What specific area of genetics validates the TOE? Can you please cite some peer reviewed studies?
Question answered with a question. Nice avoidance technique.
Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means.Funny, DNA studies have shown we all came from a single, female ancestor.
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase...
Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"TMRCA of all living humans
Estimating time to MRCA of all humans based on the common genealogical usage of the term 'ancestor' is much harder and less accurate compared to estimates of Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs. Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.
Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical societies in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, researchers now find that the MRCA of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago."
Funny, this is when the Bible says there was a great flood and only a few people survived. One guy posted up that we were really stupid to believe that all the races could have come from this one dude in the boat.
"The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu".[4]
An assumption that there are no isolated populations is questionable in view of the existence of various uncontacted peoples, who are suspected to have been isolated for many millennia, including the Sentinelese who have been isolated from the western world and also from the Asian mainland."
Then there was the guy a few posts ago that said modern discoveries don't coincide with the Bible. Hmmm.
The TMRCA of all living humans is not the same as the TMRCA of all humans.
Sorry about your luck.
This is about the most ignorant post you have made yet. And your point is what??? What we see is a bottleneck that coincides with a Biblical story. You're statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant.
No. Your assertion requires no better rebuttal.Is that the best you got?
You are not the only one who imagines condescension when they read posts in a writing style that presumes readers with an IQ greater than 50.I can't be the only one that sees through your condescending writing style that puffs you up and camo's your total lack of knowledge.
I plagiarize statements? Demonstrate.You plagurize statements you have no understanding of.
More patently obvious made-up nonsense from UltimateReality.Example of Projection: Loki calling everyone else Intellectually Dishonest. Nice try, homeslice.
Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.
More patently obvious made-up nonsense from UltimateReality.
Demonstrate.More patently obvious made-up nonsense from UltimateReality.
Projection.
Right. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you didn't know what who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means; the irony was not at all lost for the rest of us.Really? You don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is or what the term means, and that means my statement above is completely stupid and irrelevant? You are deeply retarded.
Wow, predictable is your middle name. Obviously you missed this little statement from the post before your totally predictable response... too funny. Now who is the mental midget?
UltimateReality said, "Before you get all excited and tell me I don't understand who mitochondrial Eve is and what it means, let's just cut to the chase..."
Thanks newpolitics. I am a Christian, but not at the expense of science. I don't think that either can be ignored, so as to propel the other into the winner's circle. Personally, I think the smarter we get, the closer we get to the design of God. That's all.
I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well
Everything compliments the Bible very well, even things like murder -- and that is why it remains ever popular. So science does not disprove the Bible (it is impossible), what science does is making the Bible irrelevant. It is not needed anymore to explain what we see around us, where we came form. And we certainly don't need it to make this world a better place to live for all people.
How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong.
What does it mean? What one has to do in order to "wrap his conscience", and why would one do it?
If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.
You can repeat that "people are blind" all you want, but you are not answering question -- who's fault it that people are blind? What went wrong and why?
People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.
Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?
I have faith that air exists.
Well, I don't
The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
Well, I don't
The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.
I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law.
We're good together, don't ya think?
You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
You don't understand how science works if you think that a theory can be proven. Theories can only be disproven, never proven. Theories gain merit as experiments run and observations taken to disprove them only continue to validate them. For instance, the theory of evolution was validated by the entirely new science of genetics, and no experiment or observation has ever disproven the theory. That's why TOE is one of the strongest scientific theories going, period.
The reason the theory of evolution remains a theory is because it hasn't been proven.
Merit doesn't make it law. Merit may add credence to a theory, but it can't elevate it to a law.
We may have been able to identify the genetics of a monkey, and they may be similar to a human's, but the theory is flawed when it jumps from similar to distant relative. If that part of the theory were correct and proven, then it would mean that jellyfish are related to and for a while were watermelons, because their make up is similar.
ilia25, I don't mean to be argumentative, but can't you tell the difference between the reality of being awake and the non reality of a dream? One time I robbed a bank in my dream and went to my getaway car and it had turned into a bicycle, so I went back into the bank and came out again, hoping to see my car, but this time it had turned from a bike to an old shoe. I was so frustrated........ I made myself wake up.
Can you tell the difference between the reality and dream if everything in the dream is not different from reality? Can you imagine yourself dreaming such a dream right now, and if not -- why not? Actually, that question is beside the point -- the point is that science allows such a possibility.
Also, what you call "laws" are really theories. For example, a theory of gravity explains how objects should attract each other, but it does not say that they actually will behave like it prescribes. It is still useful as long as you expect it to hold.
Actually, you are incorrect Irish Ram. A theory is called a theory not because it hasn't been proved- it has nothing to do with its merit. Gravity is still a theory, technically. And, you're theory about monkey's and watermelon's does not correspond to what TOE actually would say, because you are missing the the idea of common descent, or common ancestry. It is akin to a family tree, almost exactly. A watermelon and a monkey would have split off VERY early on. Any coincidence in DNA is either coincidental or old shared data from before they split off from each other, which probably would have been just after multi-cellular organism came into existence, before ANY animals or plants ever existed.
Or we could all just come from modern human, Eve and her husband, Adam. I get common descent, honest.
I thought gravity was a law. The results were the same every time it was tested. Before that it was guesswork, or theory.
As I understand things, it is both. There is a law of gravity, which is basically, 'gravity happens'. Then there is the theory of gravity, which tries to explain why it happens.
I'm sure someone else in the thread can either better explain it or show why I am wrong.
Another lie.Ah. So of course, you use the widest, least meaningful definition in order to shoehorn evolution into the definition. By that definition, pretty much anything can be religion. It does not, however, mean that evolution is the same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.
So you're the definition Nazi now??? The TOE is baseless in any real science.
Another lie, and ... bearing false witness.It is a religion and you know it and it is full of intellectual dishonesty at every level, just like Loki.
How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?
By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong. If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.
