Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Youwerecreated]

I already told you I am not watching it. I read the argument written by the creator and explained what I thought about it. Oh and not to mention chirality isn't even a problem in chemistry anymore since William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless' nobel prize winning work that discovered homochirality catalysts. Recently it has also been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts on proteins that are created in the wrong chirality in animals. That completely debunks this notion although reading the poorly thought out argument already debunked it for me.

Really ?



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

Yeah, already read that and since it has already been debunked by chemists and biologists, why keep repeating it?

Explain how it was debunked ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Okay, Salmonella is a bacteria closely related to E. coli and there are many strains of E. coli that cause infection Salmonella - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Escherichia coli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When have I ever or any creationist ever disagreed with variations within a family ?

But that is not macro-evolution,it is micro-adaptations or micro-evolution,your point ?

 

[Old Rocks]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

Yes, many in the scientific community are Christians. However, they are not Christians that espouse willfull ignorance. The people like Perry that either espouse willfull ignorance or pander to it are justly held in contempt.

That contempt often involves Christians that are not willfully ignorant. Why should this be considered unusual? After all, look at all those on the right that condemn all those of the Moslem faith because of the actions of a few? Blanket condemnations of whole groups on the basis of the actions of a few within those groups is the standard of conduct for all in politics, whether of the right or left. Unfortunately.

Most scientists that are Christian have a view like that of Catherine Faber

























The Word of God


From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline...
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things -- how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

-- Catherine Faber

 

[Old Rocks]

Really ?



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

Yeah, already read that and since it has already been debunked by chemists and biologists, why keep repeating it?

Explain how it was debunked ?

Chirality is an interesting feature of evolution. You see it in nature when certain compounds come into contact with feldspars, also in light driven chirality in space.

https://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/publications/my-pdfs/ChiralFaces2004.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/7/3370.full.pdf

The Astronomist: The Universe and Life is asymmetric: Chirality

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah, already read that and since it has already been debunked by chemists and biologists, why keep repeating it?

Explain how it was debunked ?

Chirality is an interesting feature of evolution. You see it in nature when certain compounds come into contact with feldspars, also in light driven chirality in space.

https://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/publications/my-pdfs/ChiralFaces2004.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/7/3370.full.pdf

The Astronomist: The Universe and Life is asymmetric: Chirality

Why does chirality pose a problem to evolution ?
I have been doing research and have unanswered questions involving the Idea of evolution as opposed to Intelligent design. Am I missing something?
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.
As I said before,it is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.
Another problem with Chirality is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of amino acid racemization dating method. This method is not very reliable because of the variables such as temperature and pH and the particular amino acid. Racemization is a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis for it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. This presents enormous problems for chemical evolution ideas as well.
This is why it is such a problem to explain away. Here is a site for some further explantion of my facts.

Now explain how a random process can create chirality?

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090505051329AA0fLFw

 

[Woyzeck]

Ok but bacteria and flies have been around a very long time and with so many mutations and having the highest mutation rates they have only variations no macro-evolution that kinda hurts your argument that mutations cause macro-evoluition.

Puzzled ?flies and bacteria have been around much longer then many things that supposedly evolved.

They're evolving and have showed macro-evolution (i.e., speciation). So why do you keep asking the same question?

 

[Woyzeck]

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.



Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

You people still trying to spin dawkins comments who cares iof they were up front with him he gave an answer and you're trying to cover for him. Imagine that a hardened evolutionist admits to design but dnies that design could have been carried out by a divine creator,that really is a joke.

They had quite a biased agenda, their interview and informing those being interviewed reflects on them, and it reflects poorly. It allows them to twist whatever he says, as seen in the clip.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor my butt this was a creation of random chance.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube

Yes, Behe was the idiot who first brought it up as evidence of irreducible complexity. Here lies the rub: if irreducible complexity is true, than you shouldn't be able to get use out of any of the parts separate. But it's not true, and we can see the use of the base portions of flagellum in pathogenic bacteria as I pointed out before.

You can deny it and say you don't believe it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Irreducible complexity as an argument does not work.

 

[Woyzeck]

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.



Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

If you don't like incorrect ideas in science you might want to clean up evolutionist ideas.

I've been spending most of my time in this thread correcting your ideas, not only about biology, but physics as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They're evolving and have showed macro-evolution (i.e., speciation). So why do you keep asking the same question?

According to your definitions it shows macro-evolution but that is not the case they are still bacteria. Remember me saying it is the theories and your vocabulary that show macro-evolution not the evidence.

Changes within a family is all you are presenting. If you want to classify different breeds of bacteria as a different species go ahead but that is not showing macroevolution because they still remain bacteria.

That is the very reason you call different breeds of the same family different species to make a case for macroevolution. Because variations happens within a family it does not prove that these new breeds will turn in to something destinctly new which is the explanation by evolutionist for the diversity we see. Your side made the claim a human came from apes,your side made the claim birds came from dinosaurs.That is the objection here.

both sides agree on variations within a family we just don't agree on groups diverging in such a major way as evolutionist claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.



Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.



No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

You people still trying to spin dawkins comments who cares iof they were up front with him he gave an answer and you're trying to cover for him. Imagine that a hardened evolutionist admits to design but dnies that design could have been carried out by a divine creator,that really is a joke.

They had quite a biased agenda, their interview and informing those being interviewed reflects on them, and it reflects poorly. It allows them to twist whatever he says, as seen in the clip.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor my butt this was a creation of random chance.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube

Yes, Behe was the idiot who first brought it up as evidence of irreducible complexity. Here lies the rub: if irreducible complexity is true, than you shouldn't be able to get use out of any of the parts separate. But it's not true, and we can see the use of the base portions of flagellum in pathogenic bacteria as I pointed out before.

You can deny it and say you don't believe it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Irreducible complexity as an argument does not work.

Explain the natural means it came in to existence not a maybe or might but something factual.

 

[Woyzeck]

According to your definitions it shows macro-evolution but that is not the case they are still bacteria. Remember me saying it is the theories and your vocabulary that show macro-evolution not the evidence.

Macro-evolution is generally defined as changes at the level of species or higher. If they evolve into a new species of bacteria, it's macro-evolution. There's been speciation in flies and bacteria. So I'm not sure why you keep saying macro-evolution didn't happen, when by the definition I've been using it has.

Changes within a family is all you are presenting. If you want to classify different breeds of bacteria as a different species go ahead but that is not showing macroevolution because they still remain bacteria.

Despite the fact that the definition of macro-evolution I've been using, says it is?

That is the very reason you call different breeds of the same family different species to make a case for macroevolution. Because variations happens within a family it does not prove that these new breeds will turn in to something destinctly new which is the explanation by evolutionist for the diversity we see. Your side made the claim a human came from apes,your side made the claim birds came from dinosaurs.That is the objection here.

both sides agree on variations within a family we just don't agree on groups diverging in such a major way as evolutionist claim.

Speciation and macro-evolution occurs and has occurred in the past. I've have pointed out evidence of such, so I don't see why you continue to deny it happened.

I still don't get why you think we should see flies and bacteria simply evolving into something else. Even for things with high turn-over generation rates it still takes time and properly evolutionary pressures to cause such significant change. Why should bacteria evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Is there some evolutionary pressure I'm not aware of? Do they need to adapt and form complex animals to survive? Given the breadth and scope of bacteria, I'd say no. But as I pointed out with the nylon-eating bacteria, and the E. coli, they do show evolution when the circumstances arise.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.



Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.



No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

If you don't like incorrect ideas in science you might want to clean up evolutionist ideas.

I've been spending most of my time in this thread correcting your ideas, not only about biology, but physics as well.

How have you proved me wrong ?

The miller and urey experiment did not create life it produced non-living amino acids absent of chirality. And you and I both know that chirality is needed for life. For the building blocks of life to do their job.

 

[Woyzeck]

If you don't like incorrect ideas in science you might want to clean up evolutionist ideas.

I've been spending most of my time in this thread correcting your ideas, not only about biology, but physics as well.

How have you proved me wrong ?

The miller and urey experiment did not create life it produced non-living amino acids absent of chirality. And you and I both know that chirality is needed for life. For the building blocks of life to do their job.

Well, you didn't seem to understand why the earth kept turning, for starters. And you don't know various things about biology or what evolution says as the threads I've debated you in evidences.

Why is chirality so vital and how is it proof of a creator? You've yet to actually explain this line of reasoning to me in your own words.

 

[Woyzeck]

You people still trying to spin dawkins comments who cares iof they were up front with him he gave an answer and you're trying to cover for him. Imagine that a hardened evolutionist admits to design but dnies that design could have been carried out by a divine creator,that really is a joke.

They had quite a biased agenda, their interview and informing those being interviewed reflects on them, and it reflects poorly. It allows them to twist whatever he says, as seen in the clip.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor my butt this was a creation of random chance.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube

Yes, Behe was the idiot who first brought it up as evidence of irreducible complexity. Here lies the rub: if irreducible complexity is true, than you shouldn't be able to get use out of any of the parts separate. But it's not true, and we can see the use of the base portions of flagellum in pathogenic bacteria as I pointed out before.

You can deny it and say you don't believe it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Irreducible complexity as an argument does not work.

Explain the natural means it came in to existence not a maybe or might but something factual.

I already pointed out one, in pathogenic bacteria it evolved from the 'syringes' it uses to infect other cells.

I suggest you go down to your local library and find a book on cell evolution if you're interested in learning more.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Macro-evolution is generally defined as changes at the level of species or higher. If they evolve into a new species of bacteria, it's macro-evolution. There's been speciation in flies and bacteria. So I'm not sure why you keep saying macro-evolution didn't happen, when by the definition I've been using it has.



Despite the fact that the definition of macro-evolution I've been using, says it is?



Speciation and macro-evolution occurs and has occurred in the past. I've have pointed out evidence of such, so I don't see why you continue to deny it happened.

I still don't get why you think we should see flies and bacteria simply evolving into something else. Even for things with high turn-over generation rates it still takes time and properly evolutionary pressures to cause such significant change. Why should bacteria evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Is there some evolutionary pressure I'm not aware of? Do they need to adapt and form complex animals to survive? Given the breadth and scope of bacteria, I'd say no. But as I pointed out with the nylon-eating bacteria, and the E. coli, they do show evolution when the circumstances arise.

Like I said before if you want to see a breed of a family as a different species that is fine but to suggest that breed will become a destinctly new family you're barking up the wrong tree. Dogs are still dogs,bacteria are still bacteria,so on and so on.

Of course the definition of macroevolution was developed to show micro-evolution and macro-evolution are pretty much the same thing,,it is because that is all the evidence evolutionist have. They extrapolate from micro-evolution or adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution if you can't see that,that is not my problem.

I agree with the term variations within a family,I do not agree with your term speciation because you imply it was due to evolution and that is not the case. Sometimes new breeds arise from sexual selection or a new breed became isolated from the family. New breeds are not from mutations and natural selection according to your theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've been spending most of my time in this thread correcting your ideas, not only about biology, but physics as well.

How have you proved me wrong ?

The miller and urey experiment did not create life it produced non-living amino acids absent of chirality. And you and I both know that chirality is needed for life. For the building blocks of life to do their job.

Well, you didn't seem to understand why the earth kept turning, for starters. And you don't know various things about biology or what evolution says as the threads I've debated you in evidences.

Why is chirality so vital and how is it proof of a creator? You've yet to actually explain this line of reasoning to me in your own words.

Really,everything in the universe is still spinning after 20 billion years from an explosion. everything is doing what it has been doing since it's creation because it was designed to do what scientist are seeing.

The answer for chirality has been posted do i need to repeat what has been posted ?

Chirality from an earlier post.

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.


It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.
Another problem with Chirality is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of amino acid racemization dating method. This method is not very reliable because of the variables such as temperature and pH and the particular amino acid. Racemization is a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis for it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. This presents enormous problems for chemical evolution ideas as well.
This is why it is such a problem to explain away.

Now describe this random process of how chirality can be created in chemical molecules ? Miller and urey couldn't do it they did produce amino acids but absent of chirality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They had quite a biased agenda, their interview and informing those being interviewed reflects on them, and it reflects poorly. It allows them to twist whatever he says, as seen in the clip.



Yes, Behe was the idiot who first brought it up as evidence of irreducible complexity. Here lies the rub: if irreducible complexity is true, than you shouldn't be able to get use out of any of the parts separate. But it's not true, and we can see the use of the base portions of flagellum in pathogenic bacteria as I pointed out before.

You can deny it and say you don't believe it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Irreducible complexity as an argument does not work.

Explain the natural means it came in to existence not a maybe or might but something factual.

I already pointed out one, in pathogenic bacteria it evolved from the 'syringes' it uses to infect other cells.

I suggest you go down to your local library and find a book on cell evolution if you're interested in learning more.

I don't need the library I have my degree,what I do now is just read more literature and watch videos on new things that was not present when I was in school. I come on here and challenge the ones who claim intelligence but reject it when it comes to the process of life.

 

[Woyzeck]

Like I said before if you want to see a breed of a family as a different species that is fine but to suggest that breed will become a destinctly new family you're barking up the wrong tree. Dogs are still dogs,bacteria are still bacteria,so on and so on.

You can use words like 'breeds' and 'families' all you want, but everyone will think you're daft. Speciation has been observed as occurring, could we get off this dead point of yours? Because all you have now is just flat out denying what I've said, with no rebuttal.

Of course the definition of macroevolution was developed to show micro-evolution and macro-evolution are pretty much the same thing,,it is because that is all the evidence evolutionist have. They extrapolate from micro-evolution or adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution if you can't see that,that is not my problem.

The definition of macro-evolution is there to show bigger evolutionary change from the smaller ones. Micro and macro differ in terms of time scales, however they both indicate change in an organism.

Biologists don't 'extrapolate' from it. We can trace genetic similarities through DNA in all organisms. It is the logical conclusion because the changes buildup over time. Every generation contains the mutations of the parent organism, plus their own mutations. Their children will contain their parents and their grandparents mutations, and then have thier own. And so on and so forth. These will gradually buildup overtime until you wouldn't recognize the original organism from the latest descendent (granted it will take thousands if not millions of years). There's nothing to suggest some 'glass ceiling' that prevents the changes from building up into truly significant change. We can see some truly significant change happening by looking at the natural history of the planet. We've unearthed many fossils of extinct species, and find modern species springing up after them.

I agree with the term variations within a family,I do not agree with your term speciation because you imply it was due to evolution and that is not the case. Sometimes new breeds arise from sexual selection or a new breed became isolated from the family. New breeds are not from mutations and natural selection according to your theory.

You list sexual selection and isolation from the rest of a population as ways variations appear. You realize you more or less just admitted to evolution? Because that's how it works. Hell you just denied that new breeds aren't from natural selection, but just the sentence before listed examples of natural selection!

Mutations are what causes organisms to change. This is fact. Again, simply saying "no it's not" doesn't actually prove evolution wrong. If mutations and natural selection isn't how organisms change over time, how do you think it's done then? Have experiments been done showing some other way? Has it been observed in nature some other way?

I'm rather curious to find out, because there is a mountain of evidence for mutations and natural selection.

 

[Woyzeck]

How have you proved me wrong ?

The miller and urey experiment did not create life it produced non-living amino acids absent of chirality. And you and I both know that chirality is needed for life. For the building blocks of life to do their job.

Well, you didn't seem to understand why the earth kept turning, for starters. And you don't know various things about biology or what evolution says as the threads I've debated you in evidences.

Why is chirality so vital and how is it proof of a creator? You've yet to actually explain this line of reasoning to me in your own words.

Really,everything in the universe is still spinning after 20 billion years from an explosion. everything is doing what it has been doing since it's creation because it was designed to do what scientist are seeing.

I can't speak for the rest of the universe, but Earth has been spinning since it's formation. It's basic physics! Space is a vacuum and therefore frictionless. There's nothing to stop the Earth from spinning like an regular object on earth! However, Earth is still losing it's kinetic energy, and we can primarily lay blame on the Moon (angular momentum going into it's orbit) and tides.

The answer for chirality has been posted do i need to repeat what has been posted ?

Chirality from an earlier post.

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.

It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.
Another problem with Chirality is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of amino acid racemization dating method. This method is not very reliable because of the variables such as temperature and pH and the particular amino acid. Racemization is a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis for it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. This presents enormous problems for chemical evolution ideas as well.
This is why it is such a problem to explain away.

Now describe this random process of how chirality can be created in chemical molecules ? Miller and urey couldn't do it they did produce amino acids but absent of chirality.

Old Rocks already posted some articles debunking this. And FurtherBB pointed out the works of Nobel Laureates on the subject. So, why do you keep bringing this up?

 

[Woyzeck]

Explain the natural means it came in to existence not a maybe or might but something factual.

I already pointed out one, in pathogenic bacteria it evolved from the 'syringes' it uses to infect other cells.

I suggest you go down to your local library and find a book on cell evolution if you're interested in learning more.

I don't need the library I have my degree,what I do now is just read more literature and watch videos on new things that was not present when I was in school. I come on here and challenge the ones who claim intelligence but reject it when it comes to the process of life.

You need one.