デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2015, 11:43 PM
デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
1. "How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"

The problem here is that these people are taking one quote out of context and the other shows that they still don't get it. Andrew Knoll saying "we don't really know how life originated on this planet" doesn't mean that there is no way to explain it. And for Paul Davies's quote, just because someone does not know now does not mean they will not know later. Keep in mind he said this in 2003, that is 12 years from ago from when I posted this.

And to compare modern cells to the first cell is an incorrect way to compare it. Modern cells have evolved more complex from their ancestors. Another problem is the probability argument. First, the mentality of creation.com is that life was supposed to exist on earth. Even with the probability argument, keep in mind any planet that was like earth would have this probability too, but we were lucky(and digimon taught me luck is a major factor in something). I would also like to say two things:

A) abiogenesis=/= evolution

B) abiogenesis=/= no god. Even if we prove abiogenesis, it doesn't disprove god.

2. "How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? "

First DNA is not a code or language or anything like that. It is compared to this so laymen can understand the concept of how DNA works. And DNA most likely started as RNA, and keep in mind they are both just chemicals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

Mutations can cause negative effect yes, but also positive and neutral ones. Whether mutations do harm or good also depends on the environment around them. Also organisms with bad mutations tend to die off. So this means organisms with positive mutations can survive. Also factors like exogenous and endogenous show how mutations can lead to different species, orders, genera, etc.

Exogenous: It is cold, mutations occur to keep the animal warm

Endogenous: A tree is immune to a poison due to an error in DNA

http://www.uvm.edu/~cgep/Education/Mutations.html

4. "Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?"

Natural Selection is taught with evolution because it has been associated with modern evolution much longer than creationism. As a matter of fact, Darwin used natural selection to form what would grow into modern evolutionary biology. Also it does, seeing how modern evolution explains a lot about life and it is natural selection. Also natural selection does explain how change can accumulate. Let me use archeopteryx as an example. Archeopteryx that glided poorly died, leaving the good gliders to have kids also good at gliding. The gliding got better with each generation and lead to flying. Simple, no? There I used natural selection to explain how one trait can come forth.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Like before we were not destined. As a matter of fact we can't even say that if life did not form the way it did now does not mean life would not form differently. And again about quotes not knowing now doesn't equal not knowing later.

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

Look doesn't not mean it is. I can look big, but I am actually small. Also this is a jab at atheist, despite there being many Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, etc, that accept evolution.

7. "How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? "

Volvocine green algae. Here is the study on it. I don't have to continue.

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_comple...lular_ones

8. "How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs)"

So far the origin of sex is becoming closer and closer to giving an good picture. One so explanation is that sex evolved 1.2 billion years ago, during the early evolution of eukaryotes. It is also suggested that sex evolved as a response to the stresses that caused DNA damage. This is not the only one, but keep in mind more research, means less creationist Bull shit. And I don't want to hear the no clear answer excuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...production

9. "Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...al-Fossils

Sorry for promoting my self, but here is a list of transitional fossils. Also the Gould thing is a quote mine. Fail

10. "How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

First worms-humans is wrong, a straw man if you will. Worm is a bad word to use here because there are more than one group of worms. Some worms are related to other organism than other "worms". Also pikaia is not a worm. Next, if an organism can retain homeostasis, it does not need to evolve. Simple.

11. "How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?"

All part of survival. Intellgence and morality help animals like humans, wolves, parrots, and even when they where alive, raptors, to survive. Also the other half of the argument is feels, not science.

12. "Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."

The reason evolution is tolerated is because of evidence it shows.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...e/lines_01

Also Philip Skell was a creationist, and not even in anything having to do with biology. This quote is pretty much null and void.

13. "Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?"

You have to get new flu shots because of evolution. Saying evolution hinders medicine is like saying leg work outs lower testosterone

14. "Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

This one is different as it still uses is historical science, but uses operational instead of observational. Neat trick, but it still falls flat. Not because of definition, but relevance. In science it is about evidence and if it is concordant, not about whether is operational or not.

15. "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?"

Evolution doesn't fit the definition of evolution, therefore it is not one. Also the Micheal Ruse quote is a quote mine, he was talking about people who treat evolution like a religion not that it is one.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/...01519.html

In conclusion: Sorry if I was lazy, I am getting back into this. Anyway, these were terrible reasons. Like, goddess help us all. Thanks for reading.

Original website:

http://creation.com/15-questions#endRef1


[Image: dted2-14.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
02-08-2015, 11:56 AM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
As a former (evolutionary) field biologist, I can tell you from experience that anytime someone refers to biologists as "evolutionists", you can pretty much ignore anything else they say. And if you choose to keep reading/listening, stand by for brain damage as you are barraged by such nonsense as above, where they make statements that presuppose the answer and/or skews the actual basis of science so badly that you'd have to expend most of your energy explaining what's wrong with the question before you can even start to answer what they were trying to ask.

In almost every case, they'll ask a twenty word question that requires two thousand words to properly answer, giving the Creationist a rhetorical advantage at two orders of magnitude, in making it appear to an unknowing audience member that there's 1) a Controversy on the subject, when there's no such thing except in the minds of Creationists, and 2) that Creationists' answers are simple and direct, while ours are complex and thus convoluted.

Thus, it is not only unworthy of a response, it may damage your brain and your spirit to engage such idiots.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-08-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
They're pretty well on their way towards figuring out how it could have happened.
(and Vera posted this this past week .. they've make a working ribosome :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid822308



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2015, 12:25 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(01-08-2015 11:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  1. "How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"

The question I ponder is "How did the evolutionary system responsible for my existence originate?"

Evolution is a collection of processes(replication and selection) acting upon matter and/or information. It is not a stand alone thing but rather a combination of things and processes forming a complex whole. It is really better, in my opinion, to think and discuss evolution in terms of it being a system.

So I ask, how did this evolutionary system(the one responsible for creating us) form? How do any evolutionary systems form?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As a former (evolutionary) field biologist, I can tell you from experience that anytime someone refers to biologists as "evolutionists", you can pretty much ignore anything else they say.

Yes. "Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies" is not even a biologist. He is a physicist. So his statements about biology are not necessarily authoritative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 01:41 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As a former (evolutionary) field biologist, I can tell you from experience that anytime someone refers to biologists as "evolutionists", you can pretty much ignore anything else they say.

Demonize your opponent

(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And if you choose to keep reading/listening, stand by for brain damage as you are barraged by such nonsense as above, where they make statements that presuppose the answer and/or skews the actual basis of science so badly that you'd have to expend most of your energy explaining what's wrong with the question before you can even start to answer what they were trying to ask.

Instill fear in those on the sideline.

(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  In almost every case, they'll ask a twenty word question that requires two thousand words to properly answer, giving the Creationist a rhetorical advantage at two orders of magnitude, in making it appear to an unknowing audience member that there's 1) a Controversy on the subject, when there's no such thing except in the minds of Creationists, and 2) that Creationists' answers are simple and direct, while ours are complex and thus convoluted.

Make an excuse not answer the question

(02-08-2015 11:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Thus, it is not only unworthy of a response, it may damage your brain and your spirit to engage such idiots.

Rationalization and Summary


Anyways, you have just employed the tactics I sometimes see fundamentalists employ. People who "liked" your post should be ashamed because if you break it down, your post was complete garbage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Demonize your opponent

How? Pointing out there are wrong with evidence? He says it is a waste of time, and to many it is. Some people don't like to argue fairy tales

(06-08-2015 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Instill fear in those on the sideline.

How? Saying hey, read books. Learn the scientific method.

(06-08-2015 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Make an excuse not answer the question

He is tell you the reason why he doesn't debate the anti-science crowd.



(06-08-2015 01:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Anyways, you have just employed the tactics I sometimes see fundamentalists employ. People who "liked" your post should be ashamed because if you break it down, your post was complete garbage.

How is explaining why some one doesn't debate the anti-science crowd and that creationist ignore evidence a reason to be ashamed? Did you read his post at all?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 02:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  How is explaining why some one doesn't debate the anti-science crowd and that creationist ignore evidence a reason to be ashamed? Did you read his post at all?

I read and I believe I quoted his post in its entirety.

He is not saying why he doesn't debate the anti-science crowd. He is making a case on why nobody should debate you or answer the questions you posed in this thread. His reasons are garbage. You posed valid questions that warrant discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 02:21 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 02:03 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  How is explaining why some one doesn't debate the anti-science crowd and that creationist ignore evidence a reason to be ashamed? Did you read his post at all?

I read and I believe I quoted his post in its entirety.

He is not saying why he doesn't debate the anti-science crowd. He is making a case on why nobody should debate you or answer the questions you posed in this thread. His reasons are garbage. You posed valid questions that warrant discussion.

Sounds like you didn't read the OP very closely. Metazoa Zeke is an atheist and a supporter of the theory of evolution. He was presenting anti-evolution statements in order to argue against them. He was in no way supporting those statements. He and Rocket Surgeon are on the same side.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
06-08-2015, 07:40 PM
RE: デユークギルモン 応える: 15 questions for evolutionist
(06-08-2015 12:25 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-08-2015 11:43 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  1. "How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"

The question I ponder is "How did the evolutionary system responsible for my existence originate?"

Evolution is a collection of processes(replication and selection) acting upon matter and/or information. It is not a stand alone thing but rather a combination of things and processes forming a complex whole. It is really better, in my opinion, to think and discuss evolution in terms of it being a system.

So I ask, how did this evolutionary system(the one responsible for creating us) form? How do any evolutionary systems form?

No it is not. It is the inevitable result of imperfect replication and selection. It is a simple algorithm that needs no "forming".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: