#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Unrebukable evidence #1: We have the remnants of what used to be a tail, located on our coccyx. Uncontroversial as you can observe it on yourself.
Yep.
Side Score: 72
|
 |
Nope. Chuck Testa.
Side Score: 44
|
|
1
point
1
point
People get "evolving from apes" and "sharing an ancestor" with them mixed up. They are two different things, we share a common ancestor with apes (evidense we share 98% of DNA with them) but we did not directly evolve from them. This fact was twisted by religious groups against evolution Side: Yep.
1
point
According to the DNA analysis , human and ape share common number of DNA chromosomes . DNA doesn't lie , right ? Thus, both species can be ascertained that poses identical ancestor inheritage . Despite the spiking wit in human, ape and human exhibit most of common structural and behavioural fashion . Human travels on two feet , mimics others actions , four-limbs , so as to the ape . Even the internal structures of human and apes have the closest match . So , "YES" , human and ape share an identical ancestor !!! Side: Yep.
|
4
points
imagine this: There are many of groups of apes in several areas of Africa millions of years ago. Over time there is a shift in climate - an ice age is beginning… For some groups of monkeys food is becoming more scarce; some groups even go extinct. A few groups have enough food if the men go out foraging for food during the day and bring back what they have to share with the women and children apes. Some days there aren't enough leaves and things to bring back, so they start eating berries, fruit, and sometimes left over carcasses that were the prey of other animals. They learn how to fend off the birds that are competing for those carcasses and how to avoid the predators. The apes that can do this best - walk far, coordinate with others, avoid predators, etc. are the ones that survive the longest and have children who generally share those same traits (passed on through their genes). Since more and more children of the group are from the apes that are successful at living long and having lots of kids, over time many children share the genes that make for successful apes in that environment. (Notice that apes in other environments haven't had to change and adapt because their food has not become scarce - they may have had different changes affecting their group.)
Imagine one of these groups is in an environment where lots of sweat glands make apes lots more successful - they can walk further with less exhaustion, etc. Lots more sweat glands also means more but thinner body hair and lessens the need for panting to regulate body temperature. Less panting allows for better vocal communication. The new diet which now includes meat uses less energy for digestion - this allows the apes to be thinner and apes who use that extra energy for cognitive functions are more successful. You would now (over many generations) have come to a group of apes that seem very different to the initial apes - they walk further, are skinnier and more upright, have thinner body hair and more sweat glands, use more brain functions including for communication. Starting to sound familiar? A few changes in genes go a long way (we are still about 96% genetically the same as apes today even though they have changed to their environments as we have.) This is not meant to be the definitive version of how humans evolved, just something to give you an idea of how evolution works. I'm sure others on here could do a better job than I have, just wanted to take a stab at it. It is hard to see evolution taking place on a large scale because of the time it takes for the groups to be affected, but you can see changes in humans today - different countries have much different average height (5'2" in Indonesia vs 6' in the Netherlands), differing skin colors, eye shapes and colors. Genes are largely are inherited from parents, but can be changed based on your environment (diet, UV rays, amount of work/sleep, weather, air and water quality, etc.) Smaller scale changes are more easily observed within a small time scale - like drug-resistant bacteria - see also Hope this helps. Side: Yep.
1
point
How do you know that it actually is a tail remnant and it's not just scientist "pretending" it is in an attempt to "prove" evolution? And, AND you still need to show me one of those "partially evolved" fossils that should be everywhere. We have monkey fossils, and we have human fossils. Why can't you show me a fossil of a half evolved human? And why is genetics a loss of information??!?!??! If we started out with less DNA then, some how end up with more, why don't we see that today? Why is all genetics a loss of information?? Side: Yep.
How do you know that it actually is a tail remnant and it's not just scientist "pretending" it is in an attempt to "prove" evolution? Scientists observed the bone with scrutiny, and had found all kinds of deformities and structural characteristics relating to the structure of an animal's tail. They identified these similarities, but acknowledged that the structure of our coccyx was just an under-developed version, continuously becoming less apparent through every new generation via Evolution. Why can't you show me a fossil of a half evolved human? Well, they have found some fossils of apish-humanoids, or Australopithechus Ramidus but I am doubtful. Perhaps their bones were easily corroded in the environments they chose to live in, or perhaps they haven't even found them yet. I'm no scientist, but what I do know for sure is that a creator wouldn't zap you into existence with remnants of a tail, which was supposed to be Evolved away, over time. Same as he wouldn't leave remnants of third-transparent eye-lids or useless, deformed parts of the body. And why is genetics a loss of information??!?!??! If we started out with less DNA then, some how end up with more, why don't we see that today? Why is all genetics a loss of information?? Well, it includes multiple types of mutations making it possible introduce new information to the genome. Sorry, I'm relying on my year 9 science here. :P Side: Yep.
2
points
"Well, it includes multiple types of mutations making it possible introduce new information to the genome. Sorry, I'm relying on my year 9 science here. :P" Yes, it includes multiple types of mutation that make it possible, but the fact still remains that it is improbable. The probability of a positive mutation is 7.269312095 x 10^54, or in other words, physically impossible. Side: Yep.
So... what are you trying to conclude from this? That we were zapped into existence, even with body parts that were deformed through evolution due to their current lack of need? There is no logic that can be taken from that, so we must go along to say that it did work, and that we are here. Scientists have already observed this as possible in bacteria... and what ever is more plausible must be more correct, right? And you still have to explain why we have remnants of primal body parts to fit it in your lack of belief in evolution. (Assuming you do have a lack of belief in Evolution.) Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
2
points
Firstly, that number is bogus. Every time I ask someone who cites these absurd figures for the arithmetic behind them, I receive the most stunning of silences. If you must know, studies on various Drosophila have shown that the odds of getting a harmful mutation are 70%-ish. That leaves 30% for neutral and positive. Now most of these non harmful mutations simply create copies of other genes, which are key to the addition of new information. These copies can be built upon without risk of damage to the being itself, as they are merely backups of the original. All the neutral and beneficial mutations are added to the gene pool, which increases in size for every generation. Which brings me on to something important: timescale. If we were discussing timescales of decades or centuries, and with different lifeforms in the thousands, then your criticisms would be justified. But instead, we're talking billions of years with trillions of different lifeforms. Really, with a 30% chance of getting a beneficial mutation, I'm pretty sure you could get one in 4 billion years. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
First off this whole "scientific" story about dna being the controller of the cells activity one big lie. I've review many research project that prove that cells can fully operate with out the nucleus but died because they fail to replicate important protien structures key to their metablism. More over nucleus is nothing more then the sexal organ of the cells actually can't be genetically modified. Any genetic altertion done to the cell must already have relatable functions within the it's predetermine potentional capabilities. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
HAOIUEFHIUSDHFIKU#($&(# FUUUUCKKK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU OK YOU MOTHERFUCKER. First, THE NEOCORTEX, THE FRONTAL FRONTAL FRONTAL PART OF THE BRAIN. The brain evolved from the inside out, as we can see from the very inner part of the brain which regulates breathing and the heart, and the core necessities of the body. From outside that, we get movement of muscles and whatnot, outside that, we get decision making, memory and more advanced senses, and outside that, we get planning, understanding and useful memory of how to do things, like how an ape can learn to use a computer, and outside that is what gives self awareness, deep thought, language, dexterous movement and advanced processes. The brain CLEARLY evolved, and the very fact that humans exist, and coinciding with the fossil record, shows that over time, humans got smarter as the necessity for intelligence increased, and that we CLEARLY evolved. You want to see a GAIN of information? Look at your opposable thumbs. They are VERY advanced. The brain as well. This all proves you wrong, yet, as I said above with the extreme, ultimate, most pristine and purest rage, you will NEVER be able to understand because you do not care about truth. You will not even try to understand. Side: Yep.
0
points
1
point
Lol wut? Scientific research has found remnants of what used to be a tail from our coccyx. That proves everything! Oh... so God made us with the under-developed remnants of a tail... makes perfect sense. The remnants of something must have the "something" to make it a remnant. It is clear that that something existed in one point in time. Side: Yep.
To prove evolution scientists used micro-evolution as an example. However, the could not evolve the micro-organism into a different species from which derived from the original micro-organism, because they could not change the factor of how many genes an organism's species has. All humans have the same amount of genes as all other humans. Same with dogs too. The change in a species's genes are impossible, therefore neither is evolving from one species to the next. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
To prove evolution scientists used micro-evolution as an example. Partly, yes. Macro evolution is essentially lots of micro evolution. Not only that though, we have already observed speciation occur. We have already witnessed species evolve into different species. All you have to do is do the research, and you will find that evolution is a perfectly sound theory. Virtually no one in the scientific community disagrees with evolution. The theory is no longer up for debate. It has already met its burden of proof and been proven with mountains of evidence. The change in a species's genes are impossible, therefore neither is evolving from one species to the next. This would be false. How else is there genetic variation, if change in genes is impossible? Side: Yep.
To evolve into a different species you must first have a different number of genes. Pretty much every gene varies, the number however, with the corresponding species, does not. And there is no proof of a witnessed species evolving into a different species. And monkey to human is indeed a change in species. The species may have changed in certain aspects, but they have not changed into a different species. For example, many people have different shaped skulls. There are small differences. But all of us are still considered human beings because the skulls are essentially the same. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
Jerking all over the room now, eh? No thanks, I'll use the conventional paints. Even if I did I only got one color. Don't know about god, or you. Wait... shit is blackish-brownish, but that just doesn't sound right... Why should they be shit? Are you racist, KillerBee? Side: Yep.
SO YOU ARE A PAINTER WOW I GUESSED IT YES!!! You don't believe in God because you want to touch him with your grasping hands and you want to see him but you can't cause you could get killed. shit is blackish-brownish, but that just doesn't sound right... So now your a painter and now you want to change the color of your poop.You said it does not make sense. I think I should make a debate saying that nummi wants to change the color of his poop Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
Allow me to end your confusion. Genetics is a loss of information. When God created Adam and Eve, they weren't white, I would guess that they were brown skinned. Their DNA contained all the information. As you may or may not be aware of, when you reproduce you lose information. For example, your Dad has errors in his genetic code. Maybe, you might come from an obese family; or maybe you might have a greater risk of getting a heart attack than other people. This is due to a loss of information in the DNA data. You might not contain the information to break down food as well as other people (thus obesity); or you may not have a strong heart. Your Mother has errors in her genetic code also. Maybe she has a greater risk of getting breast cancer than other women, or even heart attacks. Either way both your parents have errors in their genetic code. Now, when your parents reproduced, nothing was added. You dad has half of the chromosomes, your mom has the other half. When you were born, not only did you inherit genetic errors from you dad, you also inherited genetic errors from your mom; and have a new set of errors of your very own. So long story short, your Grandpa gave your dad genetic errors (who also acquired a new set), who gave you errors (as well as you having your own unique errors), and you will eventually pass these down to your children who will have new errors of their own. So back to Adam and Eve, they had perfect DNA. Their DNA contained all of the information of what we call "races". It's just as they reproduced, the DNA started to deteriorate. A "race" was born in which the genetic errors split with too much melanin in the DNA data (blacks), as well as one with a severe shortage of melanin (whites). While others retained a balance of melanin (Asians/Hispanics/Arabs). It all traces back to the fact that our DNA is deteriorating. A white couple, no matter how hard they try, cannot have a black child. And a black couple cannot have a white child. The DNA has been damaged beyond repair. It's funny how Hitler said whites are the master race, because the reason we are white is due to a genetic deficiency. That's also why evolution is wrong. It says we started out as "simple single celled organisms" and acquired more DNA. But anyone who has gone to Med School knows that that's wrong. Therefore, by genetics alone, evolution is physically impossible. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
3
points
Wow, so many errors, the illusion of knowledge....where do I start? When you reproduce, you do not lose information. Everything after that is baseless speculation. Therefore, by this statement alone, your hypothesis is invalid. Mutations are capable of adding new information to the human genome. But anyone who has gone to Med School knows that that's wrong. No, everyone who goes to med school knows that evolution is correct. Side: Yep.
1
point
"When you reproduce, you do not lose information. Everything after that is baseless speculation. Therefore, by this statement alone, your hypothesis is invalid." Wow, so many errors with this statement, the illusion of knowlege.....here let me start. As a third year med student, I can tell you it's a fact that genetics is a loss of information. That's why antibiotics must be changed every 20 years or so. The bacteria lose the genetic information necessary to break down the antibiotic as a poison, so we have to change the poison into something they can break down. Get educated. You are doing nothing but making yourself look like a fool. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
2
points
Third year medical student? You're either not a med student, or you must not be paying attention in class. it's a fact that genetics is a loss of information Nonsense. Where are your sources? DNA is not constantly losing information. Your understanding of the antibiotic issue needs work. Do you even know how antibiotics work? Antibiotics are a selective poison. They only affect the target bacteria, while leaving the body's cells alone (ideally). The way you described antibiotics is completely opposite to what I described. If the bacteria lose the genetic information to break down the antibiotic as a poison, then that means the bacteria would be obliterated by the antibiotic. If we change the poison (antibiotic) into something they can break down, then the antibiotic will have little to no effect on them. So the "med student" thinks that DNA is constantly losing information, and has a completely upside view on how antibiotics work. 3 year med student? Don't bull shit me. You're not a med student. Side: Yep.
1
point
2
points
Thank you for admitting defeat, by ignoring all my responses. You're not a med student. Or, if you are, you're a terrible one at that. Your website is an infamous website known to promote the bible and god over science and reason. It's similar to the Discovery Institute. From Wikipedia: Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Christian apologetics focused on supporting young earth creationism, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. They don't care about science, only pseudoscience that supports their goals. Do you believe the earth is a mere ~10 thousand years old as well? That's what this website says.... Sorry if I embarrassed you. It's time you learned to use google and use reliable sources. Also, don't lie about your education. It's obvious to the people who actually have one. Side: Yep.
1
point
"Your website is an infamous website known to promote the bible and god over science and reason. It's similar to the Discovery Institute." At least I posted a website. Here are all your arguments summed up: 1. "Your wrong!" (no link to information) 2. "Your wrong!" (no link to information) 3. "Your wrong!" (no link to information) And, I could argue any website you post will promote evolution over science and reason. Remember, an argument works both ways. "Christian apologetics focused on supporting young earth creationism, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. They don't care about science, only pseudoscience that supports their goals." Well you haven't been able to refute it yet....so far so good. "Do you believe the earth is a mere ~10 thousand years old as well? That's what this website says...." And you believe the earth is billions of years old?? Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
2
points
You posted a website that is not a reputable source. Therefore your theories are invalid. At least you posted a website? Doesn't matter, you posted a christian apologetic website aimed at promoting pseudoscience, young earth creationism, and god over real science. No, this argument does not work both ways. Unless of course you're a child who doesn't understand what a reputable source is. And yes I can refute it. The reason why antibiotics must be changed every X amount of years is because bacteria evolves. The ones that are more resistant to the antibiotic survive and pass on their genes. The ones that are most resistant to the antibiotic pass on their genes. Eventually through so many generations, you have a bacteria that is virtually immune to the antibiotic. That's when scientists go and look for weaknesses in the bacteria and develop a new or modified antibiotic to counter the bacteria's new defenses. It's an evolutionary arms race. I know this, and I'm not even a med student. Yes, I believe the earth is billions of years old. Why? Because of radio carbon dating. May I ask why you think the earth is thousands of years old? Oh, because the bible says so? Good reason dude. Want my link? I'll provide one from Discovery Health. Aka, the Discovery Channel's Health channel. I will also quote some selections from there: Why do resistance genes persist and spread throughout bacterial populations? It's basically just Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest, reduced to a microscopic level -- bacteria with these genes survive and outgrow susceptible variants. Discovery Health also sides with Evolution over Creationist nonsense. Side: Yep.
1
point
it's a fact that genetics is a loss of information actually that is anything but fact: Side: Yep.
3
points
This guy is delusional, only seeking evidence that supports his claims while ignoring evidence that refutes his claims. Only problem for him is that he won't find a single scientific organization that backs his view. He'll only ever find christian apologetic organizations. Three year med student? He must have slept through every single class the past 3 years. Side: Yep.
1
point
1
point
You're the one who lied about the medical school. Where do races come from? That's not difficult to figure out. Different amounts of melanin in skin lead to the different skin colors. Why do people have darker skin? It turns out that the presence of melanin is a good shield against ultraviolet radiation. In africa, the people with sufficiently dark skin were more likely to pass on their genes that favored more melanin than people with less melanin. Too much ultraviolet radiation is bad, it can cause things like skin cancer. In other places around the world, like Europe, dark skin wasn't necessary. The amount of ultraviolet radiation wasn't strong enough to naturally favor people of darker skin. Want my source? Side: Yep.
1
point
Do you even know what delusional means? It means suffering from or characterized by delusions. Do you know what delusions are? An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality The Theory of Evolution is accepted as reality among the entire scientific community, and the overwhelming majority of intelligent people on this planet. When I said you were delusional, I was using it as an adjective to describe you. You are using it as an insult to insult me. Anyways, my other posts have proven you wrong. If you want to have your temper tantrum about me supposedly shouting "Your wrong!" then continue, I won't interrupt you. Side: Yep.
1
point
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
1
point
I also like how you can't adequately explain your position, but you must defer to me reading a website. If you don't understand the material yourself, then why are you offloading it onto me so I can pick it apart? Afraid to do a little research? This must be why you believe evolution to be false.... Side: Yep.
1
point
"I also like how you can't adequately explain your position, but you must defer to me reading a website." Simple, you can't just say something, you have to back it up. If I say "My car can fly", I must prove to you that it does. Just because I say something doesn't mean it's true. Without proof words are meaningless. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
I agree that without proof we cannot be certain people are telling the truth. But you offloaded me onto a website so that I could read the whole thing. What you should have done is quote a few passages that support your position, and then link the website. You need to do some work too if you want to prove your point. If it was a link to a website with a small paragraph or information to read, that's no big deal. Side: Yep.
1
point
1
point
That link argues that harmful mutations occur more often than beneficial mutations and that genetic mutations didn't create the first genes, not that the size of the genome is never increased. In fact, it specifically references the flu virus combining with animal virus (which generally occurs through reassortment and/or chromosomal crossover) - producing entirely new genomes. AnswersInGenesis believes in microevolution, natural selection, believes that genomes can and do get longer (they just don't call this "information"), that mutations occur, and that some of those mutations are beneficial (like a virus being able to escape detection by a host). Do you agree with them? If so, I think we can move on to their arguments which seem to be statistical occurrence of bad mutations over good, the origination of the genes themselves, and microevolution vs macroevolution. Anything I missed? See also: "The segmented nature of the influenza type A virus genome allows reassortment (mixing) of genetic material between strains when two or more strains infect the same cell. This type of genetic alteration (antigenic shift) allows a virus strain of which a host has developed immunity against to swap it’s HA and NA proteins (the viral proteins recognized by neutralizing antibodies) with that of other strains which may not usually posses the ability to infect the host. Such antigenic shift can lead to the generation of viral strains by which a population may become infected without protection of neutralizing antibodies generated via previous infection or vaccination." http://www.answersingenesis. Side: Yep.
1
point
" In fact, it specifically references the flu virus combining with animal virus" Exactly, nothing NEW is added; only COMBINED. "If so, I think we can move on to their arguments which seem to be statistical occurrence of bad mutations over good" Which, in itself, is a good point. For example, if I took a bunch of gears, steel, plastic, and quartz and put it into a box and shook it for 1 billion years; it's not going to turn into a watch. That's what is called statistical impossibility. And that is the thing. Evolution could NEVER happen. It is just too statistically impossible. Supporting Evidence (since I don't know how to do it fancy at the bottom of the post ;) http://www.icr.org/article/155/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/ http://www.answersingenesis. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
The three sites you referenced are not reputable sites. One is the institute for creation research. They will always prioritize the bible over evidence, logic, and science. AnswersInGenesis is the same thing, they have a goal and that goal is to change science to fit the bible. if I took a bunch of gears, steel, plastic, and quartz and put it into a box and shook it for 1 billion years; it's not going to turn into a watch. That's what is called statistical impossibility. Your watch analogy does not apply. It is a large scale example, the first cell would be tiny in comparison to the parts of a watch. The Miller Urey experiment is an example of how inorganic material can form organic compounds like amino acids. Side: Yep.
1
point
1
point
I think the burden of proof is on you, but I'll go ahead and disprove the validity. I'll provide quotes from each article: Its work in the field of creation science has been rejected by the scientific community, but has been significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought in the United States by introducing creation science through churches and religious schools The scientific community, the people who are experts in their fields, disagree with creation science. The term is really an oxymoron. Creation pseudo science is an accurate description. Creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists,[51][52] with more than 45 science organizations having criticized creationism as not science. Why doesn't a single scientific organization support creation science or creationism? There is no evidence for it! It is baseless, all the creationists do is twist and change science to fit the bible. Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationism There's evidence of that right here, they're denying Einsteins explanation for how fast light travels in order to say that the bible is correct. The earth literally cannot be as young as creationists say it is by the simple fact of the speed of light alone. On top of that, radiometric dating confirms the earth is old as well. Side: Yep.
1
point
Also, why did you ignore what I said about the antibiotics? If you are indeed a 3 year medical student, surely you should know how antibiotics work? Please explain to me your idea on how antibiotics work and how my understanding is supposedly wrong. You've pretty much been cornered in this debate. All your points have been refuted with reputable sources, and by people with knowledge on the subject. You however have chosen to lie about your education, and pretended to have a great deal of knowledge on a subject you know next to nothing about. Side: Yep.
1
point
Doubt it, I think you pretend to have knowledge on a subject you know next to nothing about. As far as bacteria, nothing new is added; it just uses DNA already there. And another thing. Why haven't you evolutionists found any missing link fossils. I've seen many human fossils, and I've seen many monkey fossils. But I haven't seen any missing link fossils. So where are those? And what about Polystrate fossils (fossils which extend through "millions of years" of layers E.G. tree fossil)? Explain those. "You however have chosen to lie about your education" Half lied, there's a difference. I'm a three year student in Computer Science. LOL No, you haven't come close to backing me into a corner. Especially on statistical probability. I say it's statistically impossible. Supporting Evidence: http://www.icr.org/article/155/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/ http://www.answersingenesis. And yes, I'm sorry for the delay. Just been busy, busy, busy. College is kicking into gear, and I work from 7 to 7 on weekends. Not as much debate time as I had during summer break. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
How do I know next to nothing about this subject? I've answered your questions, and all you do is insist that I'm wrong while abandoning the arguments you've made in previous posts in favor of creating new ones. You were flat out wrong on antibiotics. As far as bacteria, nothing new is added; it just uses DNA already there. False, new information is added through mutations. The E. Coli long term evolution experiment has proven this. This experiment started in 1988 and is still being done today. They put 12 identical e. coli samples in 12 different incubators. They put a small amount of basic sugar, along with a few other compounds that were not sugar. Each generation made the e. coli more successful and able to survive longer in the incubator with limited resources. Eventually, one of the E coli's population exploded because it developed a mutation that allowed it to not only break down the sugar into energy, but the other non sugar compounds in the incubator into food as well. And another thing. Why haven't you evolutionists found any missing link fossils. Because evolution would be confirmed even in the complete absence of any fossil record. We don't need fossils to verify evolution, DNA already verifies that we have a common ancestor with other animals simply due to the similar strands of DNA in all organisms. The fossil record is just bonus points, even in its terribly incomplete state. And what about Polystrate fossils I do not know about polystrate fossils. Could you explain them in more detail? No, you haven't come close to backing me into a corner. Especially on statistical probability. I say it's statistically impossible. In regards to the antibiotic issue, you were completely wrong. Statistical probability in comparison to what? The formation of life? Must I refer back to the Miller Urey experiment where inorganic materials managed to form into organic compounds such as amino acids? Sure is statistically improbable alright... Those three sites prioritize the bible over science and evidence. They're more concerned with changing the evidence and science to fit the bible. When the bible and science disagree, you don't side with the bible. Side: Yep.
1
point
"I do not know about polystrate fossils. Could you explain them in more detail?" For example, a tree trunk goes down many yards through multiple layers of earth, or "millions of years" of earth. The tree should not have existed in particular layers. It goes against everything evolution claims. Like human fossils being found next to dinosaurs. Care to explain those while you are at it? "Eventually, one of the E coli's population exploded because it developed a mutation that allowed it to not only break down the sugar into energy, but the other non sugar compounds in the incubator into food as well." You only told half the story. What you "forgot" to tell is that the altered organism is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the E. Coli less fit in an environment without that specific solution. I would hardly call that evolution. "DNA already verifies that we have a common ancestor with other animals simply due to the similar strands of DNA in all organisms." Do you know what animal our DNA is closest to? A pig! So tell me, how do you know we evolved from an ape when a pig is our closest relative? Looks like neither the fossil record, nor DNA is on your side. " Must I refer back to the Miller Urey experiment where inorganic materials managed to form into organic compounds such as amino acids?" HA HA HA! Did you seriously just reference that?? Modern scientists reject (I repeat) REJECT that experiment because it actually shows that abiogenisis is NOT possible. This shows you do not know what you are talking about. Even an amateur grade schooler wouldn't reference that. Here's why. The Miller-Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below. Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine. The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, "The total yield was small for the energy expended." The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (-CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions. And, scientists cannot even explain the presence of O2 in our atmostphere! The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen. They believed this because laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen. Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the "fact" of chemical evolution is used as "proof" of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, They still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose. It was believed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of much more complex life units called proteins—the basic structure of all life. Although widely heralded by the press as "proving" that life could have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred. In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life. But I must digress. Thank you, THANK YOU for giving me the debate. By being so crazy as to actually cite the Miller Urey experiment, you just lost the argument. Because I'm going to cite it throughout the rest of the debate. LOL! Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
HA HA HA! Did you seriously just reference that?? Modern scientists reject (I repeat) REJECT that experiment because it actually shows that abiogenisis is NOT possible. This shows you do not know what you are talking about. Even an amateur grade schooler wouldn't reference that. Here's why I like how you copy and paste material from a different website as if it were you who wrote the whole thing. Let's not resort to plagiarism. Give credit where credit is due, link to the original source material, which in this case is creation.com. Creation.com is not a reputable source. You don't even understand the material that you copy and pasted, you just threw it over to me to dissect. If you refuse to cite reputable material, then there is no point in continuing this debate. Because all you're going to do is run for cover to your creationist website and ignore any and all scientific evidence I propose. Modern scientists do not reject that experiment, they support it. The only thing they do not support is the conditions of early Earth. Get your facts straight. This only serves to show that you have no idea what you're talking about, all you want to do is copy and paste things from people much smarter than yourself but not very smart in general. You only told half the story. What you "forgot" to tell is that the altered organism is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the E. Coli less fit in an environment without that specific solution. I would hardly call that evolution. I told the whole story, you've been brainwashed by creationists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of creationists pseudo scientific claims. Evolution doesn't mean better all around and at everything. The E Coli may or may not be particularly well adapted for normal life conditions outside of the incubator, but that is irrelevant. The E Coli adapted specifically to their environment, this proves evolution. They even developed a mutation that allowed them to break down another compound into food. Do you know what animal our DNA is closest to? A pig! So tell me, how do you know we evolved from an ape when a pig is our closest relative? Looks like neither the fossil record, nor DNA is on your side. Let's not lie about DNA now... How do you know a pig is our closest relative? Looks like the DNA is on my side, we did not evolve from an ape. We merely had a common ancestor with present day monkeys and apes. Same goes for humans and any other animal. But I must digress. Thank you, THANK YOU for giving me the debate. By being so crazy as to actually cite the Miller Urey experiment, you just lost the argument. Because I'm going to cite it throughout the rest of the debate. LOL! The Miller Urey experiment is not false, it is supported by scientists. There is perhaps only one aspect that scientists do not agree with in regards to the Miller Urey experiment, and that is the conditions for early Earth. As for losing the argument, it is your delusion, and one you must bear alone. Quote it throughout the rest of the debate if you'd like. I am correct on this one. Side: Yep.
1
point
"I like how you copy and paste material from a different website as if it were you who wrote the whole thing." LOL, broken "Here's Why" link. Fixed that now. Thank you for brining that to my attention. I copied and pasted because you complained last time I just slapped ya with a link, so I took the time to give you the important bits in order for you to condense your reading. Because the actual web page is like, 100 book pages long. :) "Because all you're going to do is run for cover to your creationist website and ignore any and all scientific evidence I propose." Who's ignoring who you fucking retard? I posted material that showed that the Miller Urey experiment was wrong. All you say is, "It's disreputable" like some twisted text bot. And that's another thing. Off all the obvious logical fallacies, you would think the straw man would be one you wouldn't use. But nope you use it anyway like for you it's somehow "exceptable". And, IF IT'S DISREPUTABLE, IT SHOULD BE EASY TO REFUTE!!!!! Like those sites that say things like "9/11 was a government conspiracy". Those are extremely disreputable, yet because they are, it's all the more easier to refute. But no, you can't refute it, because you know you are wrong! . And another thing. You still need to prove it's disreputable! And don't weasel out of it by saying, "You need to prove it's not disreputable" because that is a fallacy. You can't prove a negative any more that you can prove evolution, but you already proved that with your straw man arguments. "you've been brainwashed by creationists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of creationists pseudo scientific claims". No, I think you have been brainwashed by evolutionists into rejecting scientific evidence in favor of evolutionary pseudo scientific claims. See, these are my favorite type of accusations because they work both ways. "but that is irrelevant" No it is relevant because it could never happen naturally outside of a laboratory. Thus does not pertain to actual evolution. You see, you use the word irrelevant like you do not know what it means. "But it is in fact truth that gives relevance to "relevance," just as "relevance" becomes irrelevance if it is not related to truth. Without truth, relevance is meaningless and dangerous."-Author Unknown "How do you know a pig is our closest relative?" Because a pig is what they use for medical testing. Your own website even admitted that pigs are used for rare organ transplants. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot. "The Miller Urey experiment is not false, it is supported by scientists." Then fucking prove it!!! All you did was say, "It's a disreputable source". You didn't actually give any evidence to actually prove your point. You know, I think there is a word for that.....oh yeah, delusional; the same word you seem to be obsessed with like it's some "magic" argument winner. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
Creation.com is not a reputable site. They value god over science and evidence, which is why they edit and change the evidence to fit their world view. They are not scientists because a true scientist does not come up with a theory and try to prove that theory true or correct. A true scientist comes up with a theory and tries to prove it false. Creation.com doesn't do that. They have the bible, and they seek to prove the bible. That's how you know it's not real science, this created an unhealthy bias. From their website: The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge I refuted it, are you satisfied now? Who's ignoring who you fucking retard? Ad hominem attacks now? I feel special. I posted material that showed that the Miller Urey experiment was wrong. All you say is, "It's disreputable" Yes, you are correct. Creation.com is not a reputable site, therefore your argument implodes in on itself. And that's another thing. Off all the obvious logical fallacies, you would think the straw man would be one you wouldn't use. Where did I use a straw man argument? No it is relevant because it could never happen naturally outside of a laboratory. Oh, well then why did it happen outside of a laboratory experiment a few billion years ago? How else did we get here? Because a pig is what they use for medical testing. Your own website even admitted that pigs are used for rare organ transplants. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot. We'll go along with what you say, that pigs are our closest ancestor according to DNA. How does this disprove evolution? We still share a common ancestor with apes, as well as any other form of life. Then fucking prove it!!! Prove that scientists support it? Okay. The state of understanding of early Earth chemistry has changed somewhat since then (a nitrogen-carbon dioxide atmosphere is now considered more likely than Miller and Urey's mixture), but even though the Miller-Urey conditions are no longer widely accepted, the experiment did successfully prove that the basic building blocks of life could form spontaneously in nature without intelligent intervention. Side: Yep.
1
point
"A true scientist comes up with a theory and tries to prove it false." Then why are all scientific experiments, such as the Miller Urey experiment, attempts to prove evolution true? "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge" The scientific aspects of evolution are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of evolution in order to make man as a god. That might as well be posted on every evolutionist website, since they do everything that they can to push God out the door science or not. So no, you didn't refute it; I'm not satisfied. "Ad hominem attacks now? I feel special." "MarkML0528 said: "This guy is delusional" Ad hominem; I feel special too. You know, you shouldn't accuse other people of things you are guilty of... "Yes, you are correct. Creation.com is not a reputable site, therefore your argument implodes in on itself." This is an example of a straw man argument. You are attacking Creation.com rather than the argument they present. Now I don't have to answer your "Where did I use a straw man argument?" question because you just used one. Look at that, I took care of two posts with one. "Oh, well then why did it happen outside of a laboratory experiment a few billion years ago? How else did we get here?" First question: Prove it! Second question: God created us. "We'll go along with what you say, that pigs are our closest ancestor according to DNA. How does this disprove evolution? We still share a common ancestor with apes, as well as any other form of life." Because evolution tries to tell us as fact that we evolved from apes when we may as well have evolved from pigs. "Prove that scientists support it? Okay." You do realize that you own post says that it is no longer widely accepted right? Looks like you just shot yourself in your other foot. Now back to on topic, enough with the straw man augments! Are you going to provide a rebuttal for my post concerning the Miller Urey argument as being proof that evolution is false or not? If not, then I do not think you have a rational enough mind to handle debate. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
Then why are all scientific experiments, such as the Miller Urey experiment, attempts to prove evolution true? All scientific experiments are attempts to prove evolution true? No, that wasn't their goal...they did an experiment to find out if organic compounds could result from inorganic material. It just so happens the results favor evolution more than creationism. That might as well be posted on every evolutionist website, since they do everything that they can to push God out the door science or not. So no, you didn't refute it; I'm not satisfied. This makes no sense. There isn't any scientific evidence for god, that's the only reason why scientists do not include god in their theories. You can remain unsatisfied then, I provided you with information for why they are not reputable websites. All you want to do is turn the argument around as if it somehow works both ways. There's a problem with that, I do not know of a single scientific organization that says "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god". Here is your mission, should you choose to accept it ;) Find me a scientific website that values evolution above science. Ad hominem; I feel special too. You know, you shouldn't accuse other people of things you are guilty of... Look up the dictionary definition of the word, you are being delusional. I do not think I am guilty. This is an example of a straw man argument. You are attacking Creation.com rather than the argument they present. Do you even know what a straw man argument is? The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. The reason why I chose not to dissect your little post is because it would be time consuming, and because it would be no different than dissecting and refuting the chicken scratch of a 3rd grader. Are you really unable to propose the argument in your own words? Is it just too difficult for you to even comprehend the nonsense you copy and paste from the websites you cite? Comprehend the material before you post it. Copying and pasting large chunks just so I can refute it is lazy. Because once I finish refuting it, you'll abandon the argument and go find some other large paragraph and I'll have to refute that as well. It eventually turns into me doing all the reading, research, and thinking where as all you have to do is spend 2 minute typing in a google search, copying and pasting relevant material, throwing in a few smart remarks, then submitting the post. First question: Prove it! Second question: God created us. First question: We already know that it happened, we just do not know how. Second question: This is an infinite regress problem. It does not answer the issue. Because evolution tries to tell us as fact that we evolved from apes when we may as well have evolved from pigs. Um, no. Evolution does not tell us we evolved from apes. Different species did not evolve into other different species in todays world. For example, a present day pig did not evolve into a present day human. You are looking at it the wrong way. We share a common ancestor with pigs, horses, bats, cockroaches, fungi, sponges, gorillas etc. You do realize that you own post says that it is no longer widely accepted right? Looks like you just shot yourself in your other foot. It does? Perhaps I missed it, please show me where. Are you going to provide a rebuttal for my post concerning the Miller Urey argument as being proof that evolution is false or not? If not, then I do not think you have a rational enough mind to handle debate. No, I am not going to provide a rebuttal to your creationist website. I've already refuted a few of your claims, all you do is abandon them after being proven wrong and look for new things to bring into the conversation. You are too closed minded to have a rational, thoughtful debate. Side: Yep.
1
point
" No, that wasn't their goal...they did an experiment to find out if organic compounds could result from inorganic material." No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed. "Look up the dictionary definition of the word, you are being delusional. I do not think I am guilty." Yes, but the definition of moron is "dull witted". It's comparable to delusional. "Copying and pasting large chunks just so I can refute it is lazy." I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more. "We already know that it happened, we just do not know how." Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim). "This is an infinite regress problem. It does not answer the issue." Why not? "Um, no. Evolution does not tell us we evolved from apes." What? Did you just claim that??? Then why this? All evolution does is claim that we evolved from apes. "It does? Perhaps I missed it, please show me where." Ah, I misread. It says the conditions are not accepted. "all you do is abandon them after being proven wrong and look for new things to bring into the conversation." Sounds like something you did. Like with my argument on Polystrate fossils, or statistical probability for evolution. In fact, there is tons of questions that evolution can't answer. Like The Lithium Problem. According to the Big Bang, there should be 66% MORE Lithium-7 in the universe. Or what about Missing Antimatter? The Big Bang created more matter than anti-matter. This imbalance doesn't fit any evolutionist theory. Yeah, like I said, you believe in evolution despite the scientific contradictions. And now, to fix your complaint with my copy/paste argument, here is what I propose in my own words. One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half. Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life. Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that? Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
2
points
No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed. They didn't try to prove evolution correct after several experiments failed. I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?), but if it were failing, I imagine the following experiments were fine tuning of earth's early atmosphere. I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more. I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours? Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim). It is not a reliance on faith, for that would imply unjustified belief. The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter. What we don't know is how it exactly formed on Earth billions of years ago. Scientists have lots of ideas, and they continue to do research on the subject to this very day. So how you accuse me of having an unjustified belief, I do not know. I am not trying to prove evolution true just to satisfy my own personal conclusion. I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable. The science points overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, not creationism. As for evolution being contrary to science which supports "science being secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god", that is complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is beneath the scientific method. If you or anyone on this planet could prove the theory of evolution wrong, you would win a Nobel Peace Prize among a mountain of other achievements. Science rewards challenging established beliefs. Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated. You've become a victim of creationist propaganda. Why not? It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument. Side: Yep.
1
point
EDIT: Wtf people, who up voted this? I accidentally clicked submit early. GeneralLee please respond to this second one. No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed. They didn't try to prove evolution correct after several experiments failed. I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?), but if it were failing, I imagine the following experiments were fine tuning of earth's early atmosphere. I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more. I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours? Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim). It is not a reliance on faith, for that would imply unjustified belief. The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter. What we don't know is how it exactly formed on Earth billions of years ago. Scientists have lots of ideas, and they continue to do research on the subject to this very day. So how you accuse me of having an unjustified belief, I do not know. I am not trying to prove evolution true just to satisfy my own personal conclusion. I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable. The science points overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, not creationism. As for evolution being contrary to science which supports "science being secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god", that is complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is beneath the scientific method. If you or anyone on this planet could prove the theory of evolution wrong, you would win a Nobel Peace Prize among a mountain of other achievements. Science rewards challenging established beliefs. Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated. You've become a victim of creationist propaganda. Why not? It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument. What? Did you just claim that??? Then why this? All evolution does is claim that we evolved from apes. This is equivocation on your part. You're using the term ape and pig as if they are singular species. Ape refers to a group of primates. I have already said before that humans have a common ancestry with every single other species. Ah, I misread. It says the conditions are not accepted. Correct. The only thing contested in the Miller Urey experiment is the initial conditions of early Earth. The results of the experiment show that organic molecules can form from inorganic material, that is not contested by anyone in the scientific community as far as I am aware. Sounds like something you did. Like with my argument on Polystrate fossils, or statistical probability for evolution. In fact, there is tons of questions that evolution can't answer. Like The Lithium Problem. According to the Big Bang, there should be 66% MORE Lithium-7 in the universe. Or what about Missing Antimatter? The Big Bang created more matter than anti-matter. This imbalance doesn't fit any evolutionist theory. Yeah, like I said, you believe in evolution despite the scientific contradictions. I remember you bringing up the Polystrate fossils, but I thought I told you I was not familiar with them? I didn't abandon it, I just told you straight up I didn't know anything about them. If something different happened, please let me know. As for the Lithium problem, what makes you think that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are related? And how does anti matter tie in with evolution and natural selection? These "scientific contradictions" you bring up don't have anything to do with evolution. One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half. Remember where the scientists are all in agreement that the conditions for early earth in the Miller Urey experiment were likely wrong? Did it ever occur to you that if they had simulated the correct conditions, that a high enough amount of amino acids would have formed? It doesn't prove evolution. It proves that abiogenesis is possible. Basic building blocks of life were created out of inorganic materials. Perhaps the conditions that the Miller Urey experiment used were relatively unfavorable for life to form. But maybe with the appropriate conditions of early earth, a larger number of amino acids and other organic molecules would have formed thus making it favorable for life to thrive? This is why the Miller Urey experiment proves that abiogenesis is possible. Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life. Because evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. Evolution works through natural selection and other environmental and genetic factors. Abiogenesis is the study of how life formed from inorganic materials. Therefore evolution can be a fact even if scientists cannot explain how we have an oxygen rich atmosphere. Do not confuse abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The latter of which has far more evidence and is amongst the most comprehensive of theories in science. Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that? No, some bacteria use right handed amino acids. Perhaps with the right early earth conditions, the appropriate proportion of left and right handed amino acids would be present to kick start the beginning of life on earth. What you keep missing is that the Miller Urey experiment proved one thing, that organic molecules can form through inorganic material. So perhaps the conditions in the experiment were not perfect or ideal for life, but even in that less than ideal state the experiment still managed to produce amino acids. Side: Yep.
1
point
"I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?)" Yes I do. Referring to an earlier post: No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions. After Miller failed, he further synthesized his experiment in order to try to prove evolution. I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours?" LOL. Man, let me tell you, the price of college tuition has exploded in the past 20 years. According to Times Magazine, the price of college went up like 700%. I try to get money anyway I can...within the bounds of the law of course (I don't run moonshine......). "The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter." But the Miller Urey experiment shows us that life can't form. Again I refer to my three points: One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half. Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life. Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that? "I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable." Doubt it, I bet you feel uncomfortable reading the Bible. Yet I can read Darwin's Origins of Species without breaking a sweat. Remember the questioning of Jesus by Pontious Pilate: John 18:33-38 33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. If you were truly seeking truth, then I assume you would already be a Christian. "Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated." Really, didn't some famous scientist say that to believe in Christianity was "unthinkable"; so he wouldn't even study to see if it could be true? Wasn't that Hawking? "It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument." You use this argument anyways when you try to explain where the matter from the Big Bang came from. Scientists say it just was "always there". "This is equivocation on your part. You're using the term ape and pig as if they are singular species. Ape refers to a group of primates. I have already said before that humans have a common ancestry with every single other species." So this proves evolution how? "The results of the experiment show that organic molecules can form from inorganic material" Yes, but that doesn't mean life can form. "As for the Lithium problem, what makes you think that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are related?" Without the Big Bang theory, there is no theory of evolution. So if you are willing to give that up, you might as well convert to Christianity. "Remember where the scientists are all in agreement that the conditions for early earth in the Miller Urey experiment were likely wrong? Did it ever occur to you that if they had simulated the correct conditions, that a high enough amount of amino acids would have formed?" So then why don't they just do that? Why don't they just simulate those "right" conditions? "Do not confuse abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The latter of which has far more evidence and is amongst the most comprehensive of theories in science." All right, since I'm running out of time tonight, I'll give you that for now. But I want to return to this point later. No, some bacteria use right handed amino acids." Well, that's all fine and great, but you still haven't touched on the fact that all life nowadays uses left handed amino acids, and right handed ones are lethal. Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1
point
After Miller failed, he further synthesized his experiment in order to try to prove evolution. So Miller faked the results then by synthesizing the amino acids? Do you have a source for this? But the Miller Urey experiment shows us that life can't form. Again I refer to my three points: I've already refuted all three of those points in my previous post. The experiment produced amino acids, a basic building block of life. With the right early earth conditions, what would stop those amino acids from forming into life? You didn't address any of my responses that I gave to your three "points" refuting the Miller Urey experiment. Doubt it, I bet you feel uncomfortable reading the Bible. Yet I can read Darwin's Origins of Species without breaking a sweat. Remember the questioning of Jesus by Pontious Pilate: I don't feel uncomfortable reading the bible at all. I read it frequently online. One day I hope to read the whole thing front to back. The stories in the bible have no basis upon which to know the truth. Your story about Jesus and Pontious Pilate has no bearing on the truth. If you were truly seeking truth, then I assume you would already be a Christian. You make this presupposition on what grounds? That christianity is automatically true/correct? I am genuinely seeking the truth, and that quest for the truth has lead me to believe that no "higher power" of any sort exists. I do not assert that no god exists, I simply have found no evidence whatsoever that would support God's existence. Really, didn't some famous scientist say that to believe in Christianity was "unthinkable"; so he wouldn't even study to see if it could be true? Wasn't that Hawking? That may have been Richard Dawkins. If I remember correctly (and I may be misquoting him or attributing it to the wrong person), he said something along the lines of "one does not need to read superman comics to disbelieve in superman", this argument extends to the bible and God/Jesus. You use this argument anyways when you try to explain where the matter from the Big Bang came from. Scientists say it just was "always there". No, as far as I am aware scientists currently do not know where all matter came from or what started the big bang or if it even had a beginning. The whole nature of the beginning of everything is shrouded in mystery, with research currently being done on the subject. If we take your approach, we automatically assume it's god, and then all scientific research into this field stops, because we already "know" it's god. This kind of mind set can have a halting effect on scientific progress, if we automatically assume every gap in scientific knowledge was automatically God. A gap in scientific knowledge is nothing more than a gap, it is not a gap for God to claim credit for. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to a question. The inability to answer a question about the beginning of existence does not give credit to the idea of God. So this proves evolution how? I don't think we were talking about proving evolution, you were talking about how if pigs are our closest ancestor instead of apes, that would somehow automatically disprove evolution. So tell me, if that were true, how would it disprove evolution? It would still mean macro evolution happens, and that natural selection works. Everything would be the same, the only difference would be that instead of being descendents of apes and other primates we would be descendents of pigs. How does this disprove evolution? Yes, but that doesn't mean life can form. The formation of organic molecules from inorganic matter is the first step. This is why I said scientists don't know exactly how it happened. So while it doesn't automatically confirm that life itself formed automatically from the experiment, it does show that the molecules necessary for life can form spontaneously from inorganic material with the right conditions. Without the Big Bang theory, there is no theory of evolution. So if you are willing to give that up, you might as well convert to Christianity. The Theory of Evolution is completely independent of the Big Bang Theory. So even if the big bang theory were proven false tomorrow, the theory of evolution would not be affected. And even if both theories were proven false tomorrow, what reason would I have to believe in Christianity? So then why don't they just do that? Why don't they just simulate those "right" conditions? Research is still being done even as we type our responses on this site. Well, that's all fine and great, but you still haven't touched on the fact that all life nowadays uses left handed amino acids, and right handed ones are lethal. Yes I have. I responses with the following which you ignored: Perhaps with the right early earth conditions, the appropriate proportion of left and right handed amino acids would be present to kick start the beginning of life on earth. Do you have a source that declares them lethal? Side: Yep.
|
