The Theory of Evolution

[spitfire]

I'm going out for a pack of cigarettes. In case you still have wet ID dreams philosopher, I might not be able to answer straight away. But stay tuned.

[Philosopher]

In your linear dreams Philosopher.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIB1cCambrian.shtml

Your citation is worthless because the research by Meyer shows that hundreds of millions of years cannot produce a novel gene or protein, let alone a new subsist of genetic information to produce new animals.

Maybe you should contact Berkeley and tell them that you know how non-living, non-organic matter becomes living organic matter: Carbon!

Well you seem to have no idea of what you post.

Here's something from your post:

[Y]ou don't need a Ph.D. to do good science, and not all people who have Ph.D.s are good scientists either.

Ah, so to "throw PhD down the drain" comments reflect that you don't need a PhD to do good science and not all people who have PhD are good scientists either?

I am not sure if you understand this (I'm sure you did not), but the quote about the PhDs was from Donald Prothero. He was trying to use it against people he disagrees with.

[spitfire]

I was certain that you would answer like this.

You see Philosopher, it's been a long time since ID has been obliterated by science.

You are simply trying to prove yourself being right.

All you have to do has already been given to you:

Here's what is science:
Science relies on testing ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world.

Spare me and everybody else your nonsense. Prove your claims like science does.
Otherwise you are a clown. It derives from clone in case you find it offensive.

[spitfire]

Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists. —Richard Feynman

For philosophers, science is a spectator sport.

[Philosopher]

I was certain that you would answer like this.

You see Philosopher, it's been a long time since ID has been obliterated by science.

You are simply trying to prove yourself being right.

If it has been "obliterated by science", as you state, then why are you debating this issue?

Just walk away.

Spare me and everybody else your nonsense. Prove your claims like science does.
Otherwise you are a clown. It derives from clone in case you find it offensive.

I have already provided plenty of evidence, actual data, via the research of creationists and Intelligence Design researchers, which has not been debunked or negated.

I still see no answer how new genetic information came about by chance to produce new animals. And we still have no answer how non-living and non-organic matter became living organic matter.

If mutations, migrations, et al can produce new animals, we must wonder where these new animals are today.

[spitfire]

If it has been "obliterated by science", as you state, then why are you debating this issue?

Just walk away.

I'm not debating. I'm reporting. I won't go away, I'm sorry. I'll keep decomposing your falsehood.

I have already provided plenty of evidence, actual data, via the research of creationists and Intelligence Design researchers, which has not been debunked or negated.

I still see no answer how new genetic information came about by chance to produce new animals. And we still have no answer how non-living and non-organic matter became living organic matter.

If mutations, migrations, et al can produce new animals, we must wonder where these new animals are today.

You have persuaded yourself that no answer has been given. Unfortunately, answers have been given and evidence Keep pilling up. That's what science does. It whips false believers.

I know this hurts your feelings, and that it is nasty. One way of easing the pain is to see things the way science=logic does.

I have given the answer about new genetic information. In case you still wonder, just look at how you were created. You are new and unique, cells creating new cells, therefore new information.

[spitfire]

He's writing. He's about to give another explanation of logic. Place your bets... .

[Philosopher]

I'm not debating. I'm reporting. I won't go away, I'm sorry. I'll keep decomposing your falsehood.

It is not my falsehood. And I would not characterize your presence as reporting.

You have persuaded yourself that no answer has been given. Unfortunately, answers have been given and evidence Keep pilling up. That's what science does. It whips false believers.

Yes, the evidence keeps piling up in favor of creationism. The evolution house of cards is crumbling.

I know this hurts your feelings, and that it is nasty. One way of easing the pain is to see things the way science=logic does.

So by your reasoning, it is more logical to believe about 15 billion years ago something the size of a period blew up (where there was no universe) and this explosion produced a rational universe with laws. And then, oddly, non-living matter on earth (which somehow appeared) became living and from there, via unguided and undirected processes, sophisticated information more complicated than our most sophisticated computer programs evolved alone and by chance, and produced all living organisms on this planet.

This sounds like a fairy tale.

I have given the answer about new genetic information. In case you still wonder, just look at how you were created. You are new and unique, cells creating new cells, therefore new information.

If this new information can do what you claim, then why do we not see new animals produced? The fact remains that whatever new data may be created via mutations is limited to variations within animals. It never produces new animals. To do this requires new genes and proteins and it cannot arise from mutations, migrations, or recombining of existing DNA.

[spitfire]

Told ya, didn't I?

We see new creations all the time. We see spieces extinct and spieces coming out.

I'm bored. It's 4,5 billion years. Check your numbers. Cambrian was 540 million years ago.

Stop thinking in a linear way. Evolution does not say anywhere that there is linearity. It's a tree.

[spitfire]

So by your reasoning, it is more logical to believe about 15 billion years ago something the size of a period blew up (where there was no universe) and this explosion produced a rational universe with laws. And then, oddly, non-living matter on earth (which somehow appeared) became living and from there, via unguided and undirected processes, sophisticated information more complicated than our most sophisticated computer programs evolved alone and by chance, and produced all living organisms on this planet.

This is exactly what makes you a clown. 15 billion years?

Goodnight Philosopher. Find someone else to give lies to. I'm not available. Do you think that by just speaking rubbish will get you anywhere except your imaginary dreams?

Keep those wet dreams of yours. I am not buying.

[vicsinad]

First, it's one thing to use anti-evolution websites and articles to describe why evolution is wrong. It's another to use anti-evolution websites to describe what evolutionary scientists and science says about evolution. I hope that difference is clear.

Second, "new information" has not been defined. On one hand, I'm reading that new information means something like phenotype (hand, organ, etc.). On the other hand, new information is also used to mean some genetic mechanism, some minute part of a gene.

Third, I retire from this thread. Nearly this entire discussion has gone in circles.

[Vangelovski]

First, it's one thing to use anti-evolution websites and articles to describe why evolution is wrong. It's another to use anti-evolution websites to describe what evolutionary scientists and science says about evolution. I hope that difference is clear.

Second, "new information" has not been defined. On one hand, I'm reading that new information means something like phenotype (hand, organ, etc.). On the other hand, new information is also used to mean some genetic mechanism, some minute part of a gene.

Third, I retire from this thread. Nearly this entire discussion has gone in circles.

I think information is far too difficult for evolutionists to explain. Actually, impossible.

Lets see what naturalists have to say about the origin of life. So far we have carbon mysteriously coming to life once and never again. I wonder how it happened that once and why its never happened again.

[spitfire]

The first living organism was not created; it was formed in the process known as Abiogenesis.

The most likely scenario (using Earth as the obvious example) runs like this:-
For the first billion years of the Earth's existence the atmosphere was known as a "Reducing Atmosphere", containing chemicals such as Methane, Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Ammonia with no free Oxygen.

Heat from both the Sun and from Geothermal activity heated these and many other chemicals causing billions upon billions of chemical reactions to take place every second in every litre of water on the planet. Frequent lightning strikes also energised the various reactions. Under such conditions a wide variety of chemical compounds are formed, including nucleotides, amino acids, proteins, oils and carbohydrates. Because of the reducing atmosphere these are much more stable than they are in an oxygen-rich environment and so both accumulate and also participate in further reactions.

The accumlated organic compounds in effect compete, not only to be formed but also to remain in existence. Some of these compounds, such as Ribonucleic Acid (RNA), especially in association with proteins are capable of self-replication whereby they become templates for formation of similar or identical molecules and also catalyse such reactions.

Such self-replicating molecules will now compete for substrates and survival - and some may be capable of breaking down rival molecules and incorporating them into their own structures. As self-replication is never perfect, a number of rivals will produce a situation where natural selection will ensure the perpetuation of those molecules most capable of self-replication.

Some molecules became entrapped in bubbles of oil (liposomes) which protected them from the digesting effects of rival "predator" molecules. This, in effect is the most primitive cell, someone akin to a virus or simple bacterium. As time progressed these simple cells acquired a greater biochemical repertoir and were able to synthesise their own cell membranes and many other chemicals that enable them to survive in the most varied and hostile environments. To this day, bacteria are far more biochemically versatile than any other living things.

Just as bacteria were formed by the self-replicating RNA (later to become DNA) being coated in an oily membrane, so bacteria grouped together and became coated in a further oily membrane to formed the first Eukaryotic cells. Even today it is possible to identify a number of formerly free-living bacteria which now form essential organelles within our cells - for example, Mitochondria and the Golgli Apparatus (and Chloroplasts in plants).

The whole process took place over at least a billion years - and only had to produce the first living thing once in all that time. With a billion years and a billion chemical reactions taking place every second in each of the billions of litres of liquid water on the Earth even the most improbable event (which Abiogenesis isn't) becomes not just likely but inevitable.

[spitfire]

I think information is far too difficult for evolutionists to explain. Actually, impossible.

Lets see what naturalists have to say about the origin of life. So far we have carbon mysteriously coming to life once and never again. I wonder how it happened that once and why its never happened again.

I posted a scenario. You may accept it or not, that's your choice.

In order to answer why something never happens again (not entirely accurate but let's say it applies for simplification) you should understand how natural selection works.
The environment decides a lot. The organism has progressed into something that meets the necessities of the environment it's in. So there is a gradual change. The environment changes also. All of these depend upon each other.The organisms are part of the environment, they change, therefore the environment changes.
We know that the atmosphere was different a few billion years ago. There you have a change in the environment. You also have a change in the environment when a spieces is evolving. Why is it evolving? To meet the standards.
A predator at some point has evolved into hunting for food. This food if it doesn't change in order to make it difficult for the predator to catch, then it will soon extinct. The predator has to evolve also in order to keep up with the evolution of it's food otherwise the predator will extinct.
All this is natural selection. It's part of the ever changing environment.

It's creationists that can't explain how life began or how life is sustained. Not the other way around.
For instance, God created all living things. Right? How? No answer whatsoever to that.

[Philosopher]

It's 4,5 billion years

That is the supposed age of the earth, not the universe.

This is exactly what makes you a clown. 15 billion years?

The only clown, my Greek friend, is yourself. The "about 15 billion years" was a statement about the origin of the universe - the Big Bang.

Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

So we see the current estimate is that it is about 12-14 billion years, so "about" 15 billion is just about right.

And here:

According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html