If anyone can disprove the FACT of evolution I promise I will leave this site fo
Side Score: 63
Side Score: 49
Stick around. If a belief in mythology carries more weight than belief in a plethora of scientific theories, we need you around. There is NO proof of the myths ... beyond that of passed down stories of sheep and goat herders, finally condensed (and edited) into a book by an Emperor.
I'll stick with you and the science until someone offers some undeniable fact in the other direction. None have been forthcoming for at least 6000 years. ;-)
Define evolution. There are more than a few so called theories as it relates to evolution, and I don't believe that all of them are backed by science.
I mean, evolution can mean something as simple as change, which well.. The fact that we are moving through time seems to be a pretty intuitive proof of that.
Definition of definition
1 a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol dictionary definitions
b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
c : a product of defining
2 : the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group
3 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear the definition of a telescope her comic genius is beyond definition
b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail improve the definition of an image (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction
c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits a jacket with distinct waist definition
4 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
Firstly, here are some questions for you creationists:
-There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply tarted from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.
- Assume the previous point is false. Who created god? Can god exist in a dimension where space and time don't exist?
- At CERN, physicists were able to create anti-matter using enormous amounts of energy (around 30 Billion kW to create 1 nanogram). How does God get the energy to create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?
- Why does God look human? For all we know there may be so many other living species spread throughout the universe, so why does God, which is their creator as well, look coincidentally like us?
-The Earth isn't 6000 years old, there are literally cave paintings that are 5 times older.
-Beauty lies in simplicity. Why would God create such complex creatures? For example, why do we have 10 fingers, and not 12 (arithmetics is much easier in base 12).
- Fossil records show that evolution is a FACT.
Now, here comes the explanation disproving the probability argument that creationists love so much. If you're not a biochemist (why are you even arguing about something you barely know about), then I suggest reading just the part about tossing coins onwards.
If you're too lazy to read the explanation, read the final conclusion, since it's pretty important.
Having said that, all the calculations saying that the probabiblity of a protein forming is around (1/20)^300 are flawed, they include mistakes:
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.
Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.
Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont and Woese calls a progenote ), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself .
Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle . An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator . These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.
These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles.
No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.
CREATIONISTS: simple chemicals ------> bacteria
ABIOGENESIS: simple chemicals---->polymers------
Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap.
Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803!
Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".
Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.
This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins . Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still, and preceded by even simpler chemical systems.
As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.
The "life sequence" is a myth.
So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.
I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator, the SunY self-replicator or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group, but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.
The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)^32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10^390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.
However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.
Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?
Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)^4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.
1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates.
Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)^6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.
So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.
Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?
Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks
So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).
Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence . Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).
Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. The general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.
With that said, it's easy to see how the probability of proteins forming is not (1/20)^300. The reason that we haven't been able to reproduce these findings yet is because it takes time, millions of years maybe...
Finally, evolution has been proved. Nowadays, many new technologies rely on evolution, such as in computer science, where evolutionary algorithms are used to simplify complex modelling problems. Now, if evolution were false, these technologies wouldn't work... however they do work, therefore showing that evolution HAS to be true,
Kota said: -There is no need of a god, the universe may have simply started from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.
So you already have "universes collapsing", why need to have them collapse to create your imaginary universe, when you already have all these bubble-in a bubble universes, .. know what I mean?
No need of gods, I agree, way too many of them out there. But to avoid 'infinite regress', we need a Creator, right? Not a created creator like all them gods we have, but A-Creator, or more specifically The uncreated Creator, .. and what do you know, we have found Him right there in the Bible:
Infinite and Eternal "I Am"
Now I'm not talking about a god who goes on infinitely, but that Infinite Is God.
If Infinite is God, He has to be the Only Possible One, since Infinite is borderless and you cannot put anything next to or besides Him. I mean where would you put another being or thing if Infinite has no borders?
Side: Leave now
One thing I have learned over and over on this site, is that there is NOTHING any person could ever say or do to prove anything to a deceptive Liberal.
No matter how many times you present them with facts from sites, they will say those are not real facts. They simply deny the evidence.
For you to try and tell others how evolution is a proven fact, and you don't even know how the first living cell mystically and magically popped to life, means you are a waste of time to debate.
Side: Leave now
the only reason im responding to you is this: "and you don't even know how the first living cell mystically and magically popped to life", lets clear up this logical fallacy
yes, we dont know how did the first living organism come to exist... we already know of a couple of options which could have occured but we will probably never know the exact reason and event... but that doesnt mean we cant prove all living creatures are connected in a family tree and trace it all back to one living organism, yes we dont know everything... but religion doesnt know anything, it just assumes everything instead
more specifically this logical fallacy is called "god of the gaps" or as i like to call it "we dont know, therefore god": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godofthe_gaps
There is no evolution if their is no original cell of life. If you cannot explain how life emerged from non-life, you cannot explain evolution. It never happened and will never happen.
You try to dismiss this fact from your belief in evolution because you know that it's much easier to believe in evolution without facing the problem of the origin of life.
there is NOTHING any person could ever say or do to prove anything to a deceptive Liberal.
There is the black and white thinking again, everyone who disagrees with me is a deceptive liberal, everyone who disagrees with me is a far right neo nazi etc. This is just more proof that you are all robots and I am one of the few real humans left, because the level of linear polarized truncated narrow minded thinking displayed from within the monitor of my computer screen is atrociously egregious.
No matter how many times you present them with facts
Let's see your "facts" I have never had the pleasure of ripping you a new ass hole, how do you know I am like the others if I haven't even torn you a new rectum yet?
For you to try and tell others how God's existence is a proven fact, and you don't even know how the all knowing all powerfully divine consciousness mystically and magically popped to life out of nothing, means you are a waste of time to debate.
I am very open to the idea that there is a higher power, please debate this with me. I will debate evolution and you debate against it.
For the record, it even confuses me how one species can turn into another one. I can, however, explain micro-evolution (within a species) to you very well.
Alright, I'll take a try.
So by 'evolution' I assume we are talking one species to another, not within a species things like race/breed etc.
Microevolution is an indisputable fact even to the most religious among us. The question comes when we discuss a new species forming from an old one.
I invented this idea (has been posted before in other wording on my other accounts on the Internet) but feel free to copyright it and even to claim it as your own. I really am happy for people to challenge atheists on this shit because I love it when a smart person debates against science... Seriously, I love how hard they try and this is actually very well-put.
P = provision/fact and C = conclusion/theory. The operation symbols are identical to math meaning.
P1: No two species can mate to produce grandchildren (in other words, no two species can produce fertile offspring together).
P2: In order for one species to evolve into another, the intermediary generations would involve two species mating.
P3: If a species cannot mate to produce fertile offspring, there is required a means other than mating for macro-evolution to work.
P4: Only a single-celled being could possibly macro-evolve as it has no zygote (mix of 2 gamete cells) required for its replication/reproduction process and so mutations can occur to a point where an offspring has developed somethign strange in its DNA (or RNA for viruses).
C1: Macro-evolution is impossible for multi-celled organisms by natural means.
P5: There is not yet a known way for multi-cellular organisms to reproduce without mating and so the only way macro-evolution could be true is if there is something called a 'species-generating species' that exists for one generation and has insane mutation potential which led to many of the similar kind of being.
C2: The only way for macro-evolution to occur in multi-cellular organisms is for there to be some form of intelligent design (AKA unnatural) rigging the system for there to be sudden bursts of 'species-generating species'. This has never been observed yet and therefore it is likely the intelligent designer decided to hide the evidence and only allow us to find the fossils of what resulted from their existence rather than to catch their actual fossils.
Side: Leave now
well, you dont understand how evolution works: "In order for one species to evolve into another, the intermediary generations would involve two species mating."
thats just not true, we call some life form a part of a species just because it is different enough from any other "specie", all thats required for the transition from species to species is that over a long time there would occur many small changes that eventually make the distent ancestor look different enough from the new creature for us to call that new creature a new species... there was never a point in which a monkey gave birth to the first human or anything like that -_-
The stuff you have stated regarding how a monkey over kramillions of years morphs into a man has never been observed in nature. Your beliefs are not science. Somebody has fooled you into replacing science with beliefs. Whoever did that to you is not your friend.
So by 'evolution' I assume we are talking one species to another, not within a species things like race/breed etc.
There is no reason to exclude those things because they are a part of the process of evolution. In fact, they have central relevance to the reason you are completely incorrect. Cutting out the grey areas is the only way to give your little equation a fighting chance.
No two species can mate to produce grandchildren (in other words, no two species can produce fertile offspring together)
Let's take the neanderthal and the human for example, they are pretty much a different species, but they can produce fertile offspring, otherwise white people wouldn't be here. If that doesn't work for you, a roughly equivalent example would be a wolf reproducing with a dog. But that doesn't even matter, because different species or sub groups of the same species don't have to mate for speciation to occur in the first place.
In order for one species to evolve into another, the intermediary generations would involve two species mating.
Hyper reductionist oversimplification in order to satisfy a deeply rooted bias is the only explanation for such a radical failure to comprehend even the most basic principles of evolution. It's an INCREMENTAL and GRADUAL process, there is no need for two different species to mate, only for the right influences to act upon a species over a considerable period of time which causes individuals with certain traits to survive and adapt better to those conditions therefore those individuals reproduce more and the more the offspring mutate to accentuate those successful traits the more they in turn reproduce and therefore those traits are gradually proliferated and amplified until speciation occurs.
Macro-evolution is impossible for multi-celled organisms by natural means.
You must not have a multi-celled brain.
The only way for macro-evolution to occur in multi-cellular organisms is for there to be some form of intelligent design
Then how did the intelligent designer that is even more complex than life on earth get designed?
If God is real then he is the source of nature, so how can he be unnatural? The concept of something being unnatural or supernatural is self contradictory, everything that exists must be natural because "nature" is the universe itself.
"different species or sub groups of the same species don't have to mate for speciation to occur in the first place."
Yes they do.
I cannot answer about the intelligent designer(s) as I do not know his/her/its/their identity.
Explain to me how the increments and gradual sexual reproduction can suddenly result in one bunch of offspring in one generation not being able to reproduce with the other one anymore.
Side: Leave now
What's crazy about your post, is you go on and on about somebody DISPROVING a scientific fact, which, of course, simply CAN'T be done.. Negatives cannot, lemme repeat that, CANNOT be proven.. If you know ANYTHING about science, you'd know that..
Consequently, I've PROVEN you're a scientific dolt and you should leave.. Please!
Side: Leave now
Negatives cannot, lemme repeat that, CANNOT be proven.
Ex-Con, your heart is in the right place, but you're dumber than a wet fence post.
Not being able to prove a negative is sheer internet myth. How difficult do you imagine it to be for someone to prove it isn't raining? Or that they are not a dog?
What can't be proven is the absence of something in all circumstances where the parameters of where it could be are not clearly defined.
Ex-Con, your heart is in the right place, but you're dumber than a wet fence post
Says the person that claims 2,000 rapists in one single day, mainly in one city, and all in one country is normal behavior, and everybody does it.
Says the person who claims there are no countries that deal the death penalty to gays.
Says the person who says a man from the 1800s who never labored is...an expert on labor...
Side: Leave now
That's easy, even Evolutionists deny that "evolution", specifically speciation even happens. Show me ONE Evolutionists that believes, or claims that "speciation" happens?
I don't care if it's a million or a billion years ago, show me ONE Evolutionists that ever claimed that "evolution/speciation happens"?
But please, don't leave this site, I would not like that. How about that you will become a Believer in your Creator if I prove to you that evolution never happens, nor has it ever happened, and no one ever claimed it happened?
Side: Leave now