Evolution Pros and Cons

[questor]

Pyro, you used to have my respect. Since you are now a moderator, the fight can no longer be even. You have used your position to insult and demean me on numerous occasions with me being unable to answer in kind or defend myself. I don't need that or your snarky comments. You deliberately attempt to provoke me. Why not argue the issue on the thread or buzz off?

[Moontanman]

Questor I think asking you what you think defines "new life form" is a legitimate question. If indeed all you had from the earth was DNA and had never seen any Terran life form how would you tell the DNA from one species from the DNA of another species? If you had, say, the DNA from an elephant, a donkey, a horse, a bear, a dog, a lion, a tiger, a gorilla, a human, a orangutan, a rhesus monkey a dolphin and a shark would you be able just from DNA to tell how many species of animal you had? How would you go about telling the different between a horse and a donkey or a human and a chimp or a dolphin and a elephant? Would it be based on number of chromosomes? number of genes? size of genomes? How would you tell? Lets make it easy. Lets say you had the complete DNA of a horse, a donkey, a chimp and a human of the four which two would be more alike? Which two can reproduce? Which two have the most unlike DNA? Would any of those things help you decide which animals were more closely related? Simply by looking at the DNA you really couldn't conclude much from the samples, not even if they were different species. Human and chimp DNA are quite close to each other, horses and donkeys are not even near as close but horses and donkeys can reproduce and look and act quite similarly. Humans and chimps are so close they probably would be concluded to have come from the same species but they do not reproduce with each other(there is some people who say they can but no one has ever tried it) I would have to ask again, how would you define a different life form? What makes you think one species is easy to tell from another? In come cases animals and plants that are virtually identical to each other to the eye are totally different species and cannot reproduce. The main reason you cannot see genetic changes from centuries ago that are new species today is that we didn't know about genes until less than a hundred years ago and no genes are known from then to compare. So we don't know what the gens were back then or if changes have taken place since then. In general human terms the more complex an animal is the slower any change from one species to another is. Species change, some do, some don't, it would be impossible to pick out a species and monitor it to see when it changes into another species because it might not change, it might become extinct, it might not change at all. The is no way to individually say who is changing and who is not. but once a change happens it can still be difficult to see. I breed North American native fishes, mostly dwarf sunfishes, there are several species from different habitats. all are quite similar but different species none the less. It's quite easy to see these fishes and the range of species as evolution. Even among the same species there is often differentiation that is not species but still different enough to tell from what region a particular fish came from. continued reproductive isolation would "presumably" eventually result in a new species, maybe, but the idea is clearly shown with fishes.I think you are expecting an unreasonable thing to happen, "a new species will just suddenly appear, labeled as "new species" and be so different anyone or every one would look at it and say wow that is a new species, wasn't there last week but it is new now. That just isn't going to happen, even if a species did indeed happen in one generation it would no doubt be so similar to the parent species you would need gene studies to know for sure. I have participated in new species searches, we catch animals that look like they should be new species for sure but are very similar if not identical genetically and not reproductively isolated so they are not new species. it's also possible for a animals to be so similar it doesn't show to the naked eye but when checked genetically it proves to be different enough to be reproductively isolated and so a new species. It even possible for different species to be geographically isolated be very dissimilar genetically and visually and still hybridize when exposed to each other in the wild. There is a species of sucker in a western US state that started out as two different species, a third species was introduced, this third species hybridized with one of the other two and this hybrid was then able to hybridize with the other species and then these new fish were reproductively successful with each other. all three of the original species have became rare but the hybrid is spreading and becoming the dominant species. The hybrid doesn't reproduce with any of the three original species. it's not a white black, off on thing, species is a very flexible thing.

[questor]

Since I think all things will ultimate be described and evaluated by their particulate presence and activity, here are a few more quotes to ponder:

''If we add together the three probabilities (that of amino acids being laid out correctly, that of their all being left-handed, and that of their all being joined by peptide links), then we come face to face with the astronomical figure of 1 in 10950. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.

Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method, without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS

The ribosome reads the messenger RNA, and arranges the amino acids according to the information it receives there. In the illustrations, the consecutive order of the [ val, cys, and ala amino acids ], established by the ribosome and transfer RNA, can be seen. All proteins in nature are produced by this complex process. No protein comes about by "accident."
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

One of the foremost proponents of the theory of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, states the impossibility the theory has fallen into in these terms:

So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it.249

This admission by one of evolution's foremost authorities clearly reflects the logical muddle the theory of evolution is built on. The above statements in Dawkins's book Climbing Mount Improbable are a striking example of circular reasoning which actually explains nothing: "If we are here, then that means that evolution happened."

As we have seen, even the most prominent of the proponents of evolution confess that the theory is buried in impossibility when it comes to accounting for the first stage.''
''Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

The calculations we gave above to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only "the selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins." However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in a nonliving structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident." Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

What we have been discussing so far is the impossibility of just one protein's coming about by chance. However, in the human body alone there are some 100,000 proteins functioning. Furthermore, there are about 1.5 million species named, and another 10 million are believed to exist. Although many similar proteins are used in many life forms, it is estimated that there must be 100 million or more types of protein in the plant and animal worlds. And the millions of species which have already become extinct are not included in this calculation. In other words, hundreds of millions of protein codes have existed in the world. If one considers that not even one protein can be explained by chance, it is clear what the existence of hundreds of millions of different proteins must mean.''

[questor]

Moon, don't you think the best way to identify and correlate life is by its genome? if we knew the genome of every life form and could tell which genes caused a certain trait, we would then be able to better describe and classify existing life and extinct life. This cannot be done now, but we will eventually be able to do it

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Since I think all things will ultimate be described and evaluated by their particulate presence and activity, here are a few more quotes to ponder:

''If we add together the three probabilities (that of amino acids being laid out correctly, that of their all being left-handed, and that of their all being joined by peptide links), then we come face to face with the astronomical figure of 1 in 10950. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.

Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a "trial and error" method, without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

PROTEIN SYNTHESIS

The ribosome reads the messenger RNA, and arranges the amino acids according to the information it receives there. In the illustrations, the consecutive order of the [ val, cys, and ala amino acids ], established by the ribosome and transfer RNA, can be seen. All proteins in nature are produced by this complex process. No protein comes about by "accident."
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

One of the foremost proponents of the theory of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, states the impossibility the theory has fallen into in these terms:

So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it.249

This admission by one of evolution's foremost authorities clearly reflects the logical muddle the theory of evolution is built on. The above statements in Dawkins's book Climbing Mount Improbable are a striking example of circular reasoning which actually explains nothing: "If we are here, then that means that evolution happened."

As we have seen, even the most prominent of the proponents of evolution confess that the theory is buried in impossibility when it comes to accounting for the first stage.''
''Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

The calculations we gave above to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is "1" in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only "the selection of the amino acids" is left to chance. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as "amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins." However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in a nonliving structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of design and engineering, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by accident." Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

What we have been discussing so far is the impossibility of just one protein's coming about by chance. However, in the human body alone there are some 100,000 proteins functioning. Furthermore, there are about 1.5 million species named, and another 10 million are believed to exist. Although many similar proteins are used in many life forms, it is estimated that there must be 100 million or more types of protein in the plant and animal worlds. And the millions of species which have already become extinct are not included in this calculation. In other words, hundreds of millions of protein codes have existed in the world. If one considers that not even one protein can be explained by chance, it is clear what the existence of hundreds of millions of different proteins must mean.''

At one time these problems with the unlikely chemical reactions needed to make life were indeed legitimate concerns. the idea of chemicals coming together by chance were so low that life on earth wouldn't even be likely to occur once in the life of the universe much less in the early life of a planet.

Since those days we've come to know that even for reactions that are highly unlikely by simple chance, when you have so many quadrillions of molecules reacting over and over these events become much more likely, then there is the fact that a great many of these reactions are actually much more likely to happen than simple chance. The excess energy of the sun and chemical energy from within the earth drive these reactions toward complexity.

Any reaction that would be impossible if they were indeed random chance reaction are actually unlikely not to happen. These reactions are not only are very likely to happen under the circumstances of the environment of excess energy these reactions are quite common and driven to happen by the natural laws of chemistry. It is no longer correct to say these reactions are driven by random chance.

As the reactions create more and more complex chemicals the complexity of the chemical actually makes the more complex chemicals more likely to come about. Carbon chemistry works this way naturally, it's not random chance, it's random inevitability. These reactions and their byproducts are not just accidents they are actually driven by natural processes to make ever more complex chemicals.

At some point these chemicals, probably catalysts, begin to make copies of themselves, this allows even more complex chemicals to come about. You don't need a cell to randomly come into being, the first true life form was very simple compared to even the most simple life form we know today.

Several steps in different places were probably required for chemcials to reporduce. In modren cells these things all take place in the same cell at the same time but then many of these proceses were isloated outside cells and or in different cells. The coming together of all the right processes is not a one in universe event it's something that happens naturally every time the right conditions exist in the correct time frame.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Moon, don't you think the best way to identify and correlate life is by its genome? if we knew the genome of every life form and could tell which genes caused a certain trait, we would then be able to better describe and classify existing life and extinct life. This cannot be done now, but we will eventually be able to do it

The genome of some species is for more exact than the genome of others. There is no way to look at a series of gens and say this is a species or this is a new species. some species have more variation than others, it's just the way things work.

[questor]

Moon, if we knew the complete genome and gene function of every creature would that not be the best way to differentiate or describe?

You said: '' As the reactions create more and more complex chemicals the complexity of the chemical actually makes the more complex chemicals more likely to come about. Carbon chemistry works this way naturally, it's not random chance, it's random inevitability. These reactions and their byproducts are not just accidents they are actually driven by natural processes to make ever more complex chemicals.''
Would you explain the natural processes that cause these reactions? I did not learn these in organic chemistry.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Moon, if we knew the complete genome and gene function of every creature would that not be the best way to differentiate or describe?

You said: '' As the reactions create more and more complex chemicals the complexity of the chemical actually makes the more complex chemicals more likely to come about. Carbon chemistry works this way naturally, it's not random chance, it's random inevitability. These reactions and their byproducts are not just accidents they are actually driven by natural processes to make ever more complex chemicals.''
Would you explain the natural processes that cause these reactions? I did not learn these in organic chemistry.

Possibly you took organic chemistry before this idea caught hold Seriously, read "Life as we do not know it" by Peter Ward, I've read several books that address this concept but he is, I think, the best. My explanation may not be completely correct but my understanding is that given the energy of chemicals from inside the earth and energy from the sun chemical complexity is driven toward more complexity using this energy.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by questor

Perhaps a biochemist could shed some light on these observations:

I for one am not going to sit here and respond individually for every large block of quote mined text you can find until you have gone through that entire creationist website(and all the others ones on the internet). In this last text-block, Richard Dawkins was quoted out of context and his explanations overlooked in the same way the Darwin quote earlier was.
I then quickly googled another one of the quotes from the page, to find it belongs to Muslim creationist moron Harun Yahyah. If you are unfamiliar with just how dense Yahyah is, see here.
The dishonesty and shortcomings of the creationist website quoted has been demonstrated repeatedly, and it should not be taken to be a valid source of scientific information. It is a religious conspiracy theorist website and should not be taken seriously

Here is an excellent response to the "improbability of abiogenesis" nonsense spouted by many creationists
:Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
The talk origins archive is currently down for whatever reason, so that is from google cache.
And again, you would benefit from trying sources like wikipedia first:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



edit- interesting news article on some recent OOL research:
sciencedaily.com--Origin Of Life On Earth: Simple Fusion To Jump-start Evolution

[Turtle]

Good grief! Allow me to play devil's advocate to borrow a metaphor. This thread is so not Biology already that by the time I finish typing I expect to find it in Silly Claims.

Let's call the spades. This is a science site. Creationism is religion. Questor is a creationist/religionist, not a scientist. Questor is not the poor little lamb here, he is the wolf. Time for the sherpherd's rod & sling.