|
Author
|
Topic: Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 30. May 2006 20:12
Shi: "Given that to be true, what could be the explanation for the fact that 1-5% of human DNA is more closely related to gorilla than to chimps?"
Genetic mutation and evolution are stochastic processes. It's even possible for a mutation to randomly revert to its original form.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 30. May 2006 20:37
Bruce Fast: "What I have seen of convergence, even molecular convergence, seems awfully like biology does do this type of borrowing."
Most examples of convergence can be shown to be independently derived adaptations. So birds and bats both have wings, but mammals don't have feathers. Dolphins may have slippery skin and a hydrodynamic shape, but their up and down tail motion is due to their mammalian skeleton and they have lungs and hair follicles.
Bruce Fast: "HGT, a rampent phenomenon in the lower orders of life, also seems to exist in the higher orders to some extent, and clearly violates the nested hierarchy."
Horizontal Gene Transfer certainly does violate the nested hierarchy which is why naive common descent may not apply at the base of the eukaryote tree. Endosymbiosis is the most prevalent theory, but this area of biology is still somewhat tentative.
Bruce Fast: "What a wierd analysis. A bunch of the phila that appeared in the cambrian explosion never did amount to much."
What is a 'phyla'? Unlike species, the higher level taxonomic categories are somewhat arbitrary in their divisions. A phyla has traditionally been considered a large branch of a kingdom, 'large' being a relative term. Modern analysis sees phyla as an interpretation of heredity.
In any case, when examining Cambrian life up close, you would nevertheless note the nested hierarchy, and common ancestors with some branches more successful and more diversified than others.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. May 2006 20:57
Zachriel faithfully adheres to the Darwinian myth that chance was the cause of evolution. I find that most remarkable, even unthinkable. I regard it as impossible that objective observers of the evolutionary scene could still make such utterly unsupported assertions. I have made my position quite clear on that matter and have nothing more to say myself. I will let others speak for me since my own voice is obviously being ignored here at "brainstorms." For the thousandth time I once again quote Leo Berg, referring to both ontogeny and phylogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134
and his French counterpart who independently reached exactly the same conclusion.
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245
Zachriel has his sources, I mine. I have produced mine. I now expect him to produce his. That is if he dares.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 30. May 2006 22:14
The Law of biogenesis
In order for the theory of evolution to be true, life had to arise from non-living matter. The Law of Biogenesis tells us that this could not have happened, but there are still some evolutionary scientists who want to believe that there is a small chance this could happen. What would these scientists claim that the odds are of this happening?
In 1991 the distinguished British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle put it this way:
“If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes [required for life], the probability of their discovery by random shuffling turns out to be less than 1 in 1 x 10 raised* to the 40,000 power.” Just to give you an idea of how huge this number is, the number "1 trillion" is only 1 x 10*12, and it is estimated that there are only 10*80 electrons in the entire universe!
According to the scientific law of probability, the odds that Hoyle gave us are far beyond the realm of possibility. So what is the law of probability? Dr. Emile Borel, one of the world’s foremost experts on mathematical probability, formulated what scientists and mathematicians alike refer to as the basic “law of probability”. The law states that the occurrence of any event in which the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.
Can the law of probability be applied to evolution? A former director of probability research named James Coppedge stated this: “Evolution is an ideal subject in which to apply the laws of chance. As defined earlier, evolutionary doctrine denies advance planning, and has random matter-in-motion as its basic causal force.” So since we cannot directly observe evolution, probability has to be used.
Earlier we said that Sir Fred Hoyle said the chance of life arising from non-life is at least 1 in 1 x 10*40,000, far beyond the number of 10*50, which Dr. Borel presented as the limit for possibility.
What are other scientists’ estimates? Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is one chance in 1 x 10*340,000,000. That number is astronomical, considering the number of electrons in the entire universe is only estimated to be 10*80.
Carl Sagan, a very famous and outspoken evolutionist, estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the Earth, is one chance in 1 x 10*2,000,000,000. Do you realize how huge that number is? It would take 6,000 books with 300 pages each just to write this number. If anything was ever impossible, spontaneous generation would have to be it.
Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule made this statement:
“The great majority of sequences [required for life] can never be synthesized at all, at any time… An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
It was a miracle. It was a supernatural act of God. There are only two options for our origins - creation or evolution. The theory of evolution does not stand up to the tests of science.
Chad Peacock
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 30. May 2006 23:03
Sandor 606: "In order for the theory of evolution to be true, life had to arise from non-living matter."
Wrong in the very first sentence. The Theory of Evolution no more requires a theory of abiogenesis than Germ Theory does. The Theory has never included a theory of how life began, not in Darwin's day, not today.
There is currently no complete theory of abiogenesis. The general hypothesis is that chemicals can form primitive replicators. The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not its origin. However, it is known that life did not always exist on Earth, but that once it began, it diversified into a variety of forms.
Sandor 606: "the probability of their discovery by random shuffling turns out to be less than 1 in 1 x 10 raised* to the 40,000 power"
And as no scientists proposes such a model that makes the calculation irrelevant.
[snip balance of strawman argument]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 30. May 2006 23:49
Zachriel: quote:
The Theory of Evolution no more requires a theory of abiogenesis than Germ Theory does. The Theory has never included a theory of how life began, not in Darwin's day, not today.
This is what I would call the grand cop-out. It may be technically true that the theory of NDE only begins once information based (mutatable) reproduction has been estabilshed. However a complete naturalistic explanation for all that is certainly does require a theory of abiogenesis.
Alas, a complete naturalistic explanation also has to explain where the big bang came from, and how the strong anthropic principal worked itself out.
And lastly, most importantly, methodological naturalism requires an NDE theory that realistically jibes with the evidence. (Oh Zachriel, of course you see that it does.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Jehu
Member
Member # 1981
|
posted 31. May 2006 00:08
Zach
quote:
The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident
Crop circles might also be a lucky accident of wind knocking over plants. It has been scientifically confirmed that wind can knock over plants and that wind sometimes forms circlular currents. So we have the necessary material, means, and energy. We have no need for a designer hypothesis when it comes to crop circles. The argument that the plants in a crop cirlce are knocked down in a complex and specified pattern and therfore are designed is clearly a non-scientific argument from incredulity.
How much more complex is life than a crop circle?
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. May 2006 06:06
I agree with shi:
quote:
...a non-trivial fraction of our genes is more closely related to that of gorilla [Chen et al, Human Hered, 2001]. This observation has made it necessary that the estimated time to the common ancestor of human and chimpanzee now concides with that of gorilla and the line that gave rise to chimpanzees and man. Allegedly, the human lineage split off from that of chimpanzees around 4-6 million years before present and from gorilla 6-8 million years ago. Some evolutionists have argued man is the third chimpanzee, but the portion of human DNA that is more closely related to gorilla is not consistent with that idea. The genetic data show humans are not “solely chimpanzee”, but rather are built of genetic elements found throughout the primate lineages.(From: GUToB, p102)
How can we understand this? Because these data are rather being ignored than explained, there seems to be a problem for Darwinian common descent, here.
However, GUToB provides the explanantion for this: non-random mutations.
Initially, all platyrrhini primates had the same genetic make up, that is: exactly identical genes (this also explains the nesting of these primates). Then, mutations were introduced in these sequences independently because the species did not interbreed. We know now that there are two types of mutations: 1) random mutations (RM) which do not line up in phylogenetic analyses, and 2) non-random mutations (NRM) which give the illusion of common ancestry.
The distibution of NRM is determined by the bio-physiochemical nature of the DNA molecule. Some genetic elements of human and Gorilla point-mutated at the same positions; some of chimpanzee and Gorilla changed on the same positions; and some of human and chimp changed at the same positions. We talk about only one point mutations per 100-500 base pairs.
The main differences between primates are not found, however, in point mutations, but rather in small insertions or deletions (and genomic reshuffling, of course), which are NOT shared by neither of the primates. Due to insensitive techniques to reveil the indels they used to be underscored and the phylogenetic analyses only showed the point mutations (this is why we recently had to adjust the 99% sequence identity with chimpanzee to 95%; See: Britten, PNAS, 2003). The alignment of pointmutations and the nesting was interpreted as evidence for common descent. As argued, however, the alignment only reflects the NRM. As shown previously, darwinian common descent of primates can be falsified and therefore it cannot be the right theory. GUToB is the right theory, it explains where Darwin fails.
peebee
[ 31. May 2006, 07:21: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. May 2006 06:17
quote:
Darwin was usually very careful in his assertions. He could not show that all organisms shared a common ancestry, so he posited 'one or a few'.
Darwin also wrote:
quote:
“Probably all of the organic beings, which have ever lived on this Earth have descended from someone primordial form” [FROM: Darwin C, The Origin, 1859].
This vision is scientifically proven incorrect.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. May 2006 06:24
Zachriel says:
quote:
Genetic mutation and evolution are stochastic processes. It's even possible for a mutation to randomly revert to its original form.
I think it is time to read some recent literature on mutations. A good start would be Lynn Caporale's papers, or my examples of NRM. The neodarwinian assumption of random introduction of mutations(stochastic distribution) is outdated and untrue. NRM obliterate the entire neodarwinian house of cards.
Randomly revert to its original form? Randomly revert? Randomly? You mean the same nucleotide on the same spot? And you name that random?
You mean that over and over the same nucleotides and the same locations in the DNA are involved --> NRM.
I rest my case,
peebee
[ 31. May 2006, 06:27: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. May 2006 07:21
Zachriel
I ask again. Where are the sources for your absurd assertions? Surely they are not original with you. Are you ashamed to mention them?
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 31. May 2006 07:54
Zachriel,
quote:
The Theory has never included a theory of how life began, not in Darwin's day, not today.
My post did NOT say that Darwin's theory 'included' a theory of how life began. The post said: "IN ORDER for the theory of evolution to be true, life had to arise from non-living matter." This is an implication based on the theory's claim that the evolution of life is driven by a random process of trial and error, so life's origin must have been the same, i.e., a chance process.
Mathematics has proven this to be impossible.
I rest my case.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 31. May 2006 08:02
Jehu,
quote:
Crop circles might also be a lucky accident of wind knocking over plants. It has been scientifically confirmed that wind can knock over plants and that wind sometimes forms circlular currents.
Canola plants cannot be bent. Crop circle formations often appear in canola (oil seed rape) fields. This plant has a consistency like celery. If the stalk is bent more than about 45-degrees, it snaps apart. Yet, in a genuine crop circle formation the stalks are often bent flat at 90-degrees. No botanist or other scientist has been able to explain this, nor has it ever been duplicated by a human being.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. May 2006 08:45
quote:
If the stalk is bent more than about 45-degrees, it snaps apart. Yet, in a genuine crop circle formation the stalks are often bent flat at 90-degrees.
45 degrees over one centimeter of stalk?
or
45 degrees over one meter?
Not that I am particularly interested in cropcircles, but surely, canola and celery can be bent 180 degrees over 10 meters.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 31. May 2006 09:53
Jehu: "Crop circles might also be a lucky accident of wind knocking over plants."
Sheut, and we were getting all hot and bothered.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic