Creationists

[FurthurBB]

Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?

Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.

Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.

How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.

Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.

Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.

Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?

This question is just ignorant. No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set. This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.

 

[FurthurBB]

I have been pointing out to you evidence of design.

No you haven't.

And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.

I can see you have clearly capitulated.

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

No it is not, sorry, we have already been through this.

 

[FurthurBB]

Drock a positive mutation has to be present in all humans for macro-evolution not a certain few.

No, no it doesn't. But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.

Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.

Yes it does

Sometimes, I can not believe the crap you post. No, it does not no matter how much that would back the claims of others you keep citing if it was the truth.

 

[FurthurBB]

Look just admit it you can't prove your claim you will present someone speculating no proof.

He CAN prove it to anyone willing to honestly evaluate the evidence. The problem is that that clearly does not describe you.

Here you go.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. *

Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.

Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.

Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

* Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

We have already been through this and you don't even understand it. You don't try to understand it. You let other people do your thinking for you and pretend that you know something. It is disgusting.

 

[Dr Grump]

Speaking of chirality can you imagine how useless my right thumb would be on my left hand and vice versa ?

Or my left arm or leg on my right side and vice versa.

Or my left ear on the right side of my head and vice versa.

How bout my left foot as my right foot and vice versa.

Yeah I guess you get the point of chirality and the evidence of design not by random mutation.

Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.

Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?

On the other side of the coin, why do we need to defacate and urinate? And why do women have to give birth in such a way? Surely an 'intelligent designer' would fix these glitches.

 

[FurthurBB]

By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.

If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."

It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.

No, it does not, all it takes is enough genetic variation that successful breeding is not possible anymore.

 

[FurthurBB]

In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.

[All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]

If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.

Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.

Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein. You are getting more out there every second.

 

[FurthurBB]

No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.

It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.

That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying. You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.

Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven? Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!

Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.

Beneficial mutations yes positive mutations no.

How does a positive mutation become a permanent part of the genepool ?

Well, in reproductive species it must be in the germline DNA. For bacteria it becomes part of the gene pool as soon as they live long enough to divide.

 

[FurthurBB]

Uh oh you just caught them, now they have to explain how chimps and humans could breed and produce offspring.

they wouldn't and cannot.

Something we agree on and they agree to so how do they prove descent ?

The same way they prove paternity bioinformatics and phylogeny studies as well as predictions about what they will find if they are related. Come on really? My daughter knows these things and she is in high school. Bioinformatics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Phylogenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FurthurBB]

Did you notice how they totally ignored the DNA similarity between mice and worms with humans and the many other animals I posted. By their reasoning you would have to say they are our relatives to and that presents a problem for their evolutionary tree.

wow, sometimes your level of understanding is unbelievable.

Really,try this on for size,the bible say's all things were created from igredients of the ground would that be an argument on behalf of DNA similarity ? and not ancestry ?

Neither

 

[FurthurBB]

Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.

And let's look at the reality of this engine.

Well, again, modification with descent. How many times do you have to ask?

No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.

No no and no again you are wrong. I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.

 

[FurthurBB]

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

more like, if they didn't they would lie about it. Creationists are some of the biggest liars around. Do they think god really wants them to lie for him/her/it?

Hold on a second pal, you sound like these Ideologues we are talking to.

We look at the same evidence as you evolutionist we have different presuppositions that is why we interpret evidence differently. We come at it from the point of view of creation you come at from the point of view of a naturalist. If you can understand the differences that presents from observed evidence then you're no different then your bretheren.

I have read what you have to say. I have absolute faith that you wouldn't understand any of the evidence because you understand so little about biology, I would be surprised if you actually graduated from high school.

 

[FurthurBB]

Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.

No, actually that backs it up. What have I told you? Mutations are not beneficial or harmful, they just are. It is the environment that changes. Unbelievable that a scientist, even a physicist would make such an elementary mistake.

Oh it's not a mistake,there is no evidence to suggest mutations cause macro-evolution zero.

Again you are as wrong as a person could be about everything to do with biology. Do you know what urine is made from? Never mind, I am sure you will just look it up and lie some more.

 

[FurthurBB]

This has already been tested and proven, again your bible bloggers don't provide the earth-shattering evidence you were praying for.

Gain-of-function mutation in FGFR3 in mice leads to decreased bone mass by affecting both osteoblastogenesis and osteoclastogenesis

Not to mention gene and even whole genome duplication events which we have seen take place recently add tremendous information to the gene pool, something creationists ignore.

The key is new information to the genepool you have admitted that when breeding takes place you breed information out not information in unless you are cross breeding.

DR. Max evolutionist agreed with DR. Spetner

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

I never said anything like that, we were talking selective breeding of dogs.

 

[FurthurBB]

I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.

Which is 150,000,000 base pairs of Dna.

Look in the old threads ask drock or someone I am not gonna put it all out again.

It took a little time to work it out.

And when did you calculate in the chromosome translocation event that separates us from all other primates ?

What is your point ?

It's just two chromosomes getting stuck together.

So, that would make no difference in our DNA?

 

[koshergrl]

Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.

Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?

On the other side of the coin, why do we need to defacate and urinate? And why do women have to give birth in such a way? Surely an 'intelligent designer' would fix these glitches.

I think the design works pretty well.

 

[LOki]

The only losers are the ones on here pretending their brand of idiocy is any more scientific than that of the Christians they so obviously hate.

All right Cupcake; same deal, bring your best game--only you don't get dozens of concessions like Youwerecreated, and this is your only chance to refuse gracefully and respectfully--otherwise, same consequences.

What the hell are you yammering about?

Yammering?

My contention is that you have different standards for yourself v. the faithful, and lie about what the evidence shows.

This is nonsense. And unsubstantiated. Just like everything you have posted. Literally everything.

That's proven every time you open your stupid mouth. There's really nothing else to bring.

This is you yammering.

Your stupid superstition just has your retarded mind closed shut. You should have just gone with "magic."

 

[LOki]

In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions.

[All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]

If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.

Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.

And you understand neither genetics or natural selection.

I thought you claimed to be educated on these subjects.

 

[LOki]

No, idiocy is pretending that our understanding of things should never be challenged, you nitwit. Just because something has been proven in a lab doesn't mean there are no more questions to be asked, nor does it mean that what was "proven" can't be "disproven" or discovered to be completely false somewhere down the line.

It happens all the time. As those who actually work in the fields of science know. If they stopped every time something is "proven in a lab" we would would still be in the dark ages.

That's what's great about continous scientific experimentation and studying. You have no use for that, you just blindly believe whatever a book a few thousand years old says about science.

Something proven in a lab doesn't mean it was proven? Now that's some neat fundamentalist chatter!!!

Beneficial mutations have been proven in the lab, then a guy writes a blog about how it can be cuz he says it can't be, despite the facts going against him and YWC loves every word of it and takes that for fact, rather than the facts proven in the lab.

Beneficial mutations yes positive mutations no.

How does a positive mutation become a permanent part of the genepool ?

The way any mutation that is part of a gene-pool does.

 

[LOki]

Briefly what is the engine that drives macro-evolution ?

If the term engine throws you what is the mechanism let's see if you agree with BB that posted in this thread.

And let's look at the reality of this engine.

Well, again, modification with descent. How many times do you have to ask?

No,no,and no again. The preferred theory now is Neo,that is positive mutation+natural selection+large spans of time equal macro-evolution.

Not that there's any hope for a precise, meaningful response; you make a distinction between a "beneficial mutation" and a "positive mutation" without explaining what that distinction is. If there is a difference, what is the difference "beneficial mutation" and a "positive mutation?"