Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201108 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120395 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life! So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
WOW! Bobby also needs lessons in English.
In case you didn't know: when we say in the English language that something took millions of years it means that it took millions of years and not that time caused it. You didn't know that?(NEVER overestimate creationists).

WHAT ELSE did Polymath say?
1) construction of the basic building blocks of life (success)
2) determining whether cell-like structures form naturally (they do and demonstrated)
3) determining whether basic reactions are catalysed by the chemicals produced from those basic building blocks (they are and demonstrated)
4) RNA leads to good reactions (demonstrated)
5) tremendous amount of success over the last 50 years in abiogenesis (INDEED!)
6) the instrumentation of abiogenesis is quite young (60 years ago we did not know the DNA code for amino acids and 50 years ago we did not know the basics of manipulation of DNA)
7) we understand a great many things we cannot do in the lab: fusion in stars, for example.

WHERE did you address this instead of your ridiculous word weasel about time?

Of course the usual straw man fallacies which never are missing in a creationist's post.
What did Polymath say: it took hundreds of million years for life to arise (you even used that in your f*cktard tattle about time). Hence no "waiting to self organize" and no "life goes shazzam". No "waiting" and no "shazzam" but a pathway of several 100's millions of years.

Let's evaluate the YEC creationist's position:
1. their was a god who created the universe and life in just 6 subsequent days - now isn't THAT "shazzam!"
2. god took .... uuhhhh ..... uuhhhhh ..... uuuuhhhhhhh .... yes he took WHAT to create the universe and life???? Now, isn't THAT "everything came from nothing".

Advise: try to back up your own position BEFORE criticizing the position of others about things that actually are endemic to your own.

The post of Polymath basically says the very same things I said in a few posts to you.
WHERE did you address THOSE?

You REALLY have nothing to contribute here.
You REALLY are grasping at the straws of world weasels, aren't you?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120396 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Same ole articles,...... could have! nope, no life
Same ole response ..........nothing)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120397 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. James Coppedge an expert in statistical probability puts it this way:..the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the 161st power using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began....That's just the beginning!
For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life the probability is 1 in 10 followed by 119, 879 zeros.
When the evolutionists began saying that life arose by chance, math could be used to measure the probabilities of that chance.
of course since it conflicts with their beliefs , they dismiss the math.
Coppedge had a M.Sc. in chemistry, not in statistics. For the rest he was a theologian.
That's not relevant as such but as you were mentioning it. He has no understanding of biology. THAT you know form his probability calculations.

When you do probability calculation on a given process, you should represent that process correctly. When you want to calculate the odds of throwing a dice, you can't just insert the assertion it has 7 faces.

The whole of Coppedge's probability calculation is just PLAIN RUBBISH. Not for the probability calculus itself, I didn't even spend one glance on that, but for its assertions.

This is what Coppedge asserted:
- "the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance in just one trial".
THAT indeed would yield very low odds. I even trust his calculus on that.

But life isn't about proteins being arranged in just one trial. It wasn't just "poof" and there we have the protein. As Polymath wrote: "several hundreds of million years" - you should have been warned by that. According to abiogenesis, proteins emerged out of very long lasting PATHWAYS in which they were formed building block by building block. Tiny step by tiny step.

The very next flaw in Coppedge's calculus is his assertion that protein building is a stochastic process with replacement. When you throw 6 dices to obtain a 6 X 6 eyes result and you start all over again with the 6 dices in every throw, the odds of a 6 X 6 result are 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 = 0.00214%. Very low indeed. You need a lot of throws to yield that result eventually.

But abiogenesis is NOT thought to be a stochastic process with replacement. Every time you get a protein building block that suits for further assembling, it will not be thrown away but retained. In our throwing dice experiment: when you have one dice with 6 eyes, it will be put apart and you continue with the remaining ones. That is called a stochastic process WITHOUT replacement. And THOSE processes have MUCH HIGHER odds. 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 = 0.134% to be precise. See the difference with 0.00214%?

The work of Coppedge is only worth to be discarded into the recycle bin. Maybe its paper will be recycled as toilet paper. Which is a much better application.

And of course the inevitable straw man fallacies, never missing in creationist's posts: "When the evolutionists began saying that life arose by chance". Well, THEY DIDN'T.

NEXT.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120398 Aug 19, 2014
Typo correction on my previous post: the odds of throwing 6 dices to obtain a 6 X ^result in a stochastic process WITHOUT replacement is 1/6 X 1/5 X 1/4 X 1/3 X 1/2 = 0.134%.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120399 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
complexity is evidence of intelligence
Provide that evidence, then.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120400 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. James Coppedge an expert in statistical probability puts it this way:..the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the 161st power using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began.
Yes, we know. A random sequence of any of the 20 amino acids commonly used by life means that the pure chance assembly of a particular protein = 1/(sequence length to the power of 20).

Which is why no biologist explains the formation of a particular protein by chance. Nor does the theory of evolution require it.

Now look at it scientifically instead of simplistically. A particular protein is not the core requirement, a particular function might be. So for example, consider a catalyst. It is estimated that the universal set of catalysts could be created by about 100 million different proteins. There are more than - to use your number - 10^161 possible proteins (in fact the number is limitless unless you designate an arbitrary maximum length).

All this means is that there are billions upon billions of potential amino acid combinations (proteins) that could produce a particular required catalytic effect. The one we happen to see in our bodies, eg. amylase, was just one of nearly countless possible proteins that could have done the job amylase happens to do.

Now look at structural proteins. Collagen - there are different variations of collagen virtually species by species. And as for what collagen DOES, structurally, who knows how many proteins could do the same thing or similar?

Haemoglobin carries oxygen. So do several other proteins and as for how many COULD do the job, the number is again, monstrous. Its not even essential that iron is the electron donor, as right here on earth some creatures use copper.

Meaning, your Dr. Coppedge has not thought the problem through. he has merely done a superficial calculation that panders to your a priori prejudice.

If life evolved again on earth, we might expect the basic functions to exist in some form - metabolism, inheritance, structural integrity, defences against pathogens and toxins, etc etc. but we would not expect to find the same proteins doing these jobs. Coppedge HAS shown how unlikely that is. We would expect an entirely novel set of co-evolving proteins assuming proteins at all.

So, until he can determine the finite set of proteins that COULD do a particular job deemed necessary in some way, he has not succeeded in estimating the odds of such a protein forming that could do it. As far as the enzyme proteins are concerned, the universal set could be contains in a few grams of random sequence chains.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120401 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life! So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
Time and volume merely describe the playing space. Contrast the volume of a few test tubes in a lab for a duration of a few weeks or years with the entire crust of the earth for a duration of 100 million years, and consider that the self organisation examples already demonstrated "in the test tube": Such as, lipid microspheres, RNA, amino acids and polypeptide chains, phosphate sugars, etc, demonstrably self organising. Self organisation is not a mystery, its expected in an energy flux and violates no physical laws in spite of Creationist's continuing misapplication of thermodynamics...

Now, once you get over this silly 10 ^161 per protein notion, as I hope TB and my posts above have illustrated, perhaps you will also stop with the notion that time is being invoked as if to get around insurmountable difficulties. Its not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120402 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life the probability is 1 in 10 followed by 119, 879 zeros.
As just explained, pure and utter baloney.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120403 Aug 19, 2014
messiac114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Ok, no problem if you are willing to accept the definition.
A kind is a family such as cats, dogs, cattle.
Really?
Well let's go back to the biblical myth of Noah.
There we read Noah was commanded to gather of each KIND a male and female to board on his ark.

In biology a family is a groups of genera. And each genera consists of one or more, mostly more, species. The family felidae consists of five subfamilies based on phenotypical features: the Felinae, the Pantherinae, the Acinonychinae, the extinct Machairodontinae, and the extinct Proailurinae. In total including 8 genera and 42 extant species and 28 extinct ones.

Now the bible doesn't summarize the precise species Noah took on his ark. Let's assume you are right and the ones he took were kind = "family".

WHICH male and female did he took out of the Felidae family? Two lions? Two domestic cats? Who panthers? Or a Dinofelis male and female (extinct sabre toothed felid)? Who knows.

But, more importantly, how did that one species of cat managed to produce the extinct 26 species of felidae species and 42 extant ones in just 4,500 years? Macro-evolution in a unprecedented fast pace!

THAT is the consequence of your kind = family definition.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120404 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
I even trust his calculus on that.
And problem is with these anti-abiogenesis assertions is that realistically speaking we don't have enough information about the specifics of the early environments that enabled abiogenesis to occur. So while the numbers the fundies give out may even add up, the numbers aren't valid because we don't know all the variables that were involved, much less know precise numbers that should be assigned TO those variables. Therefore a truly accurate calculation of the odds of abiogenesis can't really be done by anybody.

So, again for Bo's benefit, we'll point out what's happened and the possibilities of how it happened. The chances of life appearing on Earth are 100%. We know that because life is here. There's four potential possible ways for that to have happened:

1 - Natural development of life via already existing processes, the short version we call "abiogenesis".

2 - Goddidit with magic.

3 - Aliens.

4 - An unknown fourth option which nobody has considered since nobody's thought it up yet.

So far however there's only evidence of one of these. And that would be option 1, abiogenesis. For reasons explained to Bo and the rest of the fundies a multitude of times.

By the way, Bohart? The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120405 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Well let's go back to the biblical myth of Noah.
There we read Noah was commanded to gather of each KIND a male and female to board on his ark.
In biology a family is a groups of genera. And each genera consists of one or more, mostly more, species. The family felidae consists of five subfamilies based on phenotypical features: the Felinae, the Pantherinae, the Acinonychinae, the extinct Machairodontinae, and the extinct Proailurinae. In total including 8 genera and 42 extant species and 28 extinct ones.
Now the bible doesn't summarize the precise species Noah took on his ark. Let's assume you are right and the ones he took were kind = "family".
WHICH male and female did he took out of the Felidae family? Two lions? Two domestic cats? Who panthers? Or a Dinofelis male and female (extinct sabre toothed felid)? Who knows.
But, more importantly, how did that one species of cat managed to produce the extinct 26 species of felidae species and 42 extant ones in just 4,500 years? Macro-evolution in a unprecedented fast pace!
THAT is the consequence of your kind = family definition.
And this is what renders all Messy's Young Earth apologetics (dinosaur soft tissue and the like) utterly irrelevant. For if we take his BS at his word for the sake of argument, for those arguments to work they also refute all his bogus flood claims too. Since those arguments don't actually address the evidence or the hypothesis of common ancestry, but rather attempt to pull the rug out from underneath evolution by claiming it hasn't had enough time to occur. Same would apply to creationism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120406 Aug 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And I am talking about life forming on earth. What is stopping new life from forming, and is it being tested?
Life is extinct? When did that happen?

Why do you think you can make a valid argument when you can't even put together a coherent query correctly?

That's just it, isn't it? You're here for the sake of argumentation, right or wrong doesn't make a difference. The Bible "predicted" people would call out your BS and that's what you're here for - your daily martyr whipping.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120407 Aug 19, 2014
messiac114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Now it seems since we have 15,000,000 mutations we should expect that even more change is happening, which we are still not seeing, so even though I disagree with your method of multiplying mutations (which I don't think you can documeny 15 billion mutations, you still ahve a problem because you have increased the rate of change without anything happening.
You REALLY have no f*cking idea what you are talking about, don't you?

Do I really have to explain basic biology to some-one who feels himself entitled to discuss it?

First of all your meanwhile infamous reading capabilities. I wrote:
- the DIFFERENCES between the human and chimp genome are 90 Mb or 30 million single nucleotide differences.

THEN I wrote:
- when a population of 100,000 animals with an average mutations rate of 150 in each newborn procreates for 1000 generations, POTENTIALLY this accumulates to 15 BILLION mutations in the species' genome.

Are these the same?
NO.

Here are your misreadings:
- not 15,000,000 (15 million) mutations but 15 BILLION. 15 million is also LOWER than 30 million, so I just can't make any sense about your post saying "even more change is happening". But 15 billion indeed is more than 30 million, so let's consider it was a typo of you.
- although I purposely put it in capitals, even then it did not manage to catch tour attention: POTENTIAL.

And now I have to explain the very next of basic 101 biology to you. But, frankly speaking, it is getting annoying to constantly address one on the basics of biology which he nonetheless feels entitled to criticize.

When mutations are occurring, most of them will be weeded out by the process of natural selection. The ones that account for differences between two species are those mutations that are fixed in the population's genome. When biologists refer to "fixing into the population's (=species') genome", they mean the number of mutations that were not weeded out by natural selection.

Example: of all conceptions in humans, only 15% result in a life birth. That's TODAY. Today we have medicine to save premature born children. Under pure natural circumstances, this 15% would inevitably be much lower. Now let's go back to the European, medieval parish population administrations. There they registered every birth, marriage and death. Also archaeological excavations of graveyards give a good impression of the average age of death. See http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Fertilit.htm . From those we know the demographic regime of the middle ages. Hence we know that in average only 60% of all children managed to survive 12 years. For the female death rate in the link above (land holding families in England 1276-1300), the chance of surviving the first 9 years of life was less than 50%. MIND that these figures pertain land holding families, the more wealthy part of the population. And wealth always yield higher longevity. Males tend to do worse.

In other words, before a generation reaches its reproductive age (only in reproduction it passes its genes to the next generation), a vast majority of it has died. In uterus or, otherwise, in life. Most of the POTENTIALLY genetic variations, caused by mutations, is gone.

But THAT wasn't my point. My point was that the mutation rate AS SUCH has the potential to change about everything in the genome manifold in just 1000 generations. 90Mb or 30 million point generations in 250,000 generations in 2 lineages? PIECE OF CAKE.
messiac114 wrote:
<quoted text>
"... though I disagree with your method of multiplying mutations ..."
Well, let's see YOUR calculations THEN.
Or, AT LEAST, a proper explanation WHY you don't agree.

You must do MUCH BETTER than this rather irrelevant and poor response.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120408 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
And you prove me right again, I said you believe in the cake mix theory of life, and here you are , chemicals coming together ,..getting mixed the right way.
1. coming together,.. and mixed the right way?.......A.K.A ,... self assembly
You have a interesting belief
Considering that we *are* mixes of chemicals, what is problematic with the 'bake mix' theory? Yes, life is ultimately self-assembling in the right environment. So?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120409 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I gotcha! nothing caused the universe, right, and the uncaused universe caused life..........
That's quite a belief you have there.
Close enough. Life is part of the universe and its causes are part of the universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120410 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You've done it Poly! you answered #5 the chemicals become alive when.....yada,yada,yada?
How come no one else knows the secret of life but you?
or are you just bullshitting,...yep, that's it.
its not observable
its experimented
its not repeatable
etc
etc
etc.
Hey , believe what you want
OK, the chemicals are said to be alive when their internal state is self-sustaining, when the system grows and reproduces. ALL of those are chemical processes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120411 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life! So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
Life is a bunch of chemical reactions. Life has a habit of self-organising due to chemistry. Happens all over the entire planet every single day.

If there's a mechanism for intelligence that we're missing then please tell us what that mechanism is and present evidence of it.
bohart wrote:
complexity is evidence of intelligence
Your claim MIGHT be fine.

So what you need to do now is point out WHY "complexity" is evidence of intelligence. You need to tell us how you're measuring complexity, what the demarcation line is between designed and non-designed, how you were able to determine that line in an objective manner via the scientific method, and what the mechanisms are that are responsible along with evidence of them.

Oh, and while you're at it you need to state exactly what the designer's limits are and how you were able to determine those limits by using the scientific method. For example, why is a deity that creates entire universes as a hobby incapable of designing a biological cell capable of evolution? Though I imagine you might have a little trouble with all this as so far none of you guys have ever been able to demonstrate that such a being even exists in the first place.

Best o' luck to ya.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120412 Aug 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And problem is with these anti-abiogenesis assertions is that realistically speaking we don't have enough information about the specifics of the early environments that enabled abiogenesis to occur. So while the numbers the fundies give out may even add up, the numbers aren't valid because we don't know all the variables that were involved, much less know precise numbers that should be assigned TO those variables. Therefore a truly accurate calculation of the odds of abiogenesis can't really be done by anybody.
So, again for Bo's benefit, we'll point out what's happened and the possibilities of how it happened. The chances of life appearing on Earth are 100%. We know that because life is here. There's four potential possible ways for that to have happened:
1 - Natural development of life via already existing processes, the short version we call "abiogenesis".
2 - Goddidit with magic.
3 - Aliens.
4 - An unknown fourth option which nobody has considered since nobody's thought it up yet.
So far however there's only evidence of one of these. And that would be option 1, abiogenesis. For reasons explained to Bo and the rest of the fundies a multitude of times.
By the way, Bohart? The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
Yes I know and fully agree but his post referred to the probability calculations of proteins occurring out of the "primordial soup" and that's a little bit different than calculating the odds of life as such emerging out of abiotic conditions. The calculus was about a primordial soup containing all the basic elementary compounds needed for proteins to emerge.

But, even within these parameters, STILL about everything was wrong. Apart from the mathematical calculus itself. I assume. I hope. At least.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120413 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
complexity is evidence of intelligence
Actually, it is often simplicity that is evidence of intelligence: smooth lines where nature produces complex ones, perfect squares when nature tends not to produce such. Even out more complex devices have simple lines in them that nature does not make spontaneously. THAT is the evidence for intelligence.

Nature is often, even typically complex, with multiple feedback loops and multiple causes for most events.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120414 Aug 19, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And I am talking about life forming on earth. What is stopping new life from forming, and is it being tested?
Why do you care what's being tested?

Evidence doesn't matter to your position. Testing doesn't matter to your position.

So how come all you can do is ask dishonest questions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word association (Jun '07) 13 min wichita-rick 4,800
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 15 min Mega Monster 4,722
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 16 min Crystal_Clear722 8,476
Word Association (Mar '10) 17 min wichita-rick 20,656
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... 22 min kuda 9
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 30 min wichita-rick 3,455
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 33 min -Prince- 145,984
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sparky 194,192
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr honeymylove 7,797
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 4 hr Family man 146
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 hr Denny CranesPlace 58,055
More from around the web