Login

Join for Free!
118252 members


Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:54 am

Okay, I see where I made my mistake; I see that you mentioned "last 4" which would not include hydrogen. Somehow I had thought the number 4 was a reference to carbon, which has a valence number of 4. What I deserve for posting when I really should be sleeping. My apologies.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby futurezoologist » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:13 am

is wrong, because you did claim exactly that:
No Alex, not how do I know what Adam and Eves race was, how the writers of genesis knew what their race was, they knew they were white,


Where in that sentence did i say that it was written in the bible?Just because it doesn't appear in the modern day bible doesn't mean that that was not the notion in the heads of the writers or in fact what they originally wrote. Although i do see your point in that it was suggestive of that.


Queen Sheba, for example, whom the Bible praises for her wisdom, was almost certainly black


The key word there is Queen, it seems to be a general trend in history that leaders get praised.


in the time of Jesus, most slaves were the same race as their owners.


Well that's one point to you. I'm not going to argue with that authoritative tone heh.


(the only mostly-black nation mentioned in the Bible)

Wow there's a point for me.


Can you cite a source for this supposed racial disparity?


Several infact, and since you have actually read the bible im sure you could quote a few more, jesus made several racist comments actually. Heres the typical one:

"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.""


considering that there is Biblical evidence


Bibles do not provide evidence.


Lots of heat because there was so much CO2 from the volcanoes, I believe methane, N and water vapor predominately. The O2 allegedly didn't come into being until blue green algae produced it. My question is how did the water vapor ever condense with all that greenhouse effect.


Dejavu, water vapor is being continually pumped out of volcanoes, air becomes saturated, even with high temperatures if the air is saturated and more water vapor is continually pouring out of volcanoes the water has 'no choice' but to condense, as it condensed carbon dioxide dissolves in it (and reacted with to form carbonic acid) and we have a slow cycle which over the thousands of years evens its self out. Of course- these are theories but all evidence points towards them.


This is another theory repetitively taught in the schools as though there is no dispute, but you can see the problems.


Besides the point that i can't see any devastating problems with it--if we are not to teach the future generations our theories then what are we to teach them? By your reasoning we shouldn't teach them anything.


Sorry for some of my short unexplained answers as im in a rush.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby alextemplet » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:25 pm

futurezoologist wrote:Where in that sentence did i say that it was written in the bible?Just because it doesn't appear in the modern day bible doesn't mean that that was not the notion in the heads of the writers or in fact what they originally wrote. Although i do see your point in that it was suggestive of that.


I find it hard to see how your statement could've been interpreted any other way, but I'll take your word for it if you say that wasn't your intention. Although I would like to again point out that your distinction between modern-day and latter-day Bibles is a false distinction.

futurezoologist wrote:Several infact, and since you have actually read the bible im sure you could quote a few more, jesus made several racist comments actually.


One of the biggest reasons Jesus was criticized by the prevailing religious leaders of His day was for not being racist enough; He was remarkably egalitarian for that time period. Hence He drank from the same well as a Samaritan woman and praised a Roman centurion for having greater faith than anyone in Israel; these are just two examples but there are more. This was also a common criticism levelled against the early Christian Church: being too inclusive. One of the biggest reasons Christianity split from Judaism was because the Christian Church was not trying to force traditional Jewish laws (circumcision, dietary regulations, etc) on their Gentile converts. The Christian mentality of "Us vs the Heathens" wouldn't develop until centuries later, after the European Christians (and it was mostly only European Christians) gained some real political power and let it go to their heads.

futurezoologist wrote:Bibles do not provide evidence.


False; any historical document provides evidence into how the culture that produced it lived, thought, and developed.

Anyway we seem to be drifting way off the point here; perhaps we should just agree to disagree and get back to some real science?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)


Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AFJ » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:19 am

Futurezoologist in regards to hemoglobin
A vast number of ways yes, but i think that you think it is much more than it is, you haven't taken into account polar bonds(of which there are a lot in hemoglobin due to H, N, O), the stress put on any random structure from this imbalance alone would cancel at least half of the possibilities.

Structure of Hemoglobin
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/Molbio/MolStudents/spring2005/Heiner/hemoglobin.html Quoted from the website above--great images!

"Hemoglobin is a tetramer composed of 4 globin molecules; 2 alpha globins and 2 beta globins. The alpha globin chain is composed of 141 amino acids and the beta globin chain is composed of 146 amino acids (Perutz, 1978). Both alpha and beta globin proteins share similar secondary and tertiary structures, each with 8 helical segments (labeled helix A-G) (Keates, 2004). Each globin chain also contains one heme molecule."

FZ you have a diagram of the heme molecule. I knew it was way too small. There are 4 of them in each hemoglobin molecule. A total of 287 amino acids plus the 4 heme molecules. Glycine is one of the smallest organic aa's and it has 10 atoms. So it's conceivable that hemeglobin has 3000 atoms.

Even with if all the atoms were like CO2 which is polar and strait all the atoms could bond with each other in a straight line with H bonded on the side of carbon or nitrogen.

The point is that even if you took the 287 amino acids and tried to combine them without guidance the odds of getting it right so that the polar bonds caused the secondary and tertiary, and then even a quaternary structure would be off the chart!

To think that the DNA, RNA and ribosomes could get this right with no intelligent design is not intelligent! :wink:
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AFJ » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:25 am

Just a note for the proceeding. This is a hypothetical illustration. I realize that when you change the sequence you may have breaks or secondary bonding through London or polar forces. i understand your points Alex and FZ, but those consequences are only in FAVOR of the design argument.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby futurezoologist » Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:45 am

FZ you have a diagram of the heme molecule. I knew it was way too small. There are 4 of them in each hemoglobin molecule.

Yes sorry about that, i have not done much study on hemoglobin but it was my understanding that this was the site of oxygen transfer and so(if i am correct) would this not be the crucial site of which the "5 combinations" that Dr Menton referred to?(please correct me if I'm wrong) , i wasn't trying to be persuasive.

The point is that even if you took the 287 amino acids and tried to combine them without guidance the odds of getting it right so that the polar bonds caused the secondary and tertiary


Arranging these 287 amino acids through randomness in 1000 years seems quite unlikely, 10,000 years - seeming possible, 100,000 years increasingly possible, 1,000,000 years-possible, and considering they had a few hundred million years i think it seems quite possible.


Can you cite a source for this supposed racial disparity?


You have done it for me.(see below)
One of the biggest reasons Jesus was criticized by the prevailing religious leaders of His day was for not being racist enough; He was remarkably egalitarian for that time period.



False; any historical document provides evidence into how the culture that produced it lived, thought, and developed.


No my friend that is false, it provides a representation of that culture and this representation is dependent on the context of the writer, a different context means a different representation, for example a historical account of written by a slave will differ hugely when compared to an upper class citizen even though they live in the same society.

I do agree we are going off topic a bit, but i had to refute as i think you'll agree its hard to leave your arguments in a state of loss.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby alextemplet » Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:50 pm

Futurezoologist, I'm not sure I follow your point, or more specifically I'm not sure how it differs from my own. Obviously different people may write from different perspectives, but the writings still reveals a window into the mindset of that writer. Consider, for example, how some chapters of 1 Samuel advance arguments in favor of a Hebrew kingship while other chapters in the very same book argue in favor of keeping the decentralized government the Hebrews had had previously. It is generally agreed that these different parts of 1 Samuel were written by different authors, and may never have been meant to be published together as part of the same book, but the Bible is full of such cases. Together, this gives an indication of a society that was in the midst of a serious political debate as to how it should be governed. Thus to claim that the Bible does not provide evidence into how people lived during that time is just plain silly.

But I should probably be addressing the hemoglobin question. I haven't done the math myself, but it would not surprise me if the number of ways to arrange the atoms in hemoglobin did turn out to be more than the number of particles in the known universe. Heck, the number of ways to put together an octane with forty atoms of carbon is greater than the particles in the known universe, so hemoglobin with even more atoms should be as well. The problem with this thinking is that it doesn't prove anything, because there are limits to how living cells put things together. The question of valency was mentioned previously, and this in itself should allow a large percentage of those "possibilities" to be thrown out the window. Then take into account that cells do not just arrange atoms randomly even within the limits of valency; cells work on the level of amino acids, not atoms. Thus any "possibility" that does not involve the whole amino acids, rather than just individual atoms, can also be thrown out. This means only a tiny percentage of those "possibilities" are actually possible in the real world. Factor in the time that futurezoologist was talking about, and the fact that only those arrangements which actually worked would survive to be passed on, and I don't think it sounds all that impossible at all.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby wbla3335 » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:10 pm

No functional protein in any organism ever arose by a random association of its parts. No functional protein in any organism ever arose by translation from a chance association of nucleotides.
wbla3335
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:20 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby futurezoologist » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:54 pm

Together, this gives an indication of a society that was in the midst of a serious political debate as to how it should be governed. Thus to claim that the Bible does not provide evidence into how people lived during that time is just plain silly.


Ahh we are talking about different types of evidence now. When i made that picky remark i was referring to the fact that scientific evidence cannot be taken from such sources due to their their biasness(if that is a word) whereas you are talking of evidence like they use in crime scenes etc.

Besides our ongoing blabling at each other i think this topic is just about worn out.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
User avatar
futurezoologist
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby alextemplet » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:10 am

futurezoologist wrote:Ahh we are talking about different types of evidence now. When i made that picky remark i was referring to the fact that scientific evidence cannot be taken from such sources due to their their biasness(if that is a word) whereas you are talking of evidence like they use in crime scenes etc.


Okay, I see where we misunderstood each other. And yes you're right that the Bible is not the place to go for scientific evidence. I was speaking more about understanding the culture, which literature (even pure fiction) is very good for. So now that we've reached an understanding, you're right that it is pretty much worn out.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AFJ » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:15 am

Arranging these 287 amino acids through randomness in 1000 years seems quite unlikely, 10,000 years - seeming possible, 100,000 years increasingly possible, 1,000,000 years-possible, and considering they had a few hundred million years i think it seems quite possible.

Were not just talking about hemoglobin here, but entire systems of organic macro-molecules and processes that evolution can not account for.

1. Transcription--DNA does not copy to RNA with a photocopier--it is done enzymatically! That means just to get the plans for the hemoglobin enzymes are involved in sync with the RNA polymerase to produce a COMPLEMENTARY messenger RNA. How many amino acids are in the DNA and RNA for the hemoglobin? How many amino acids are in the enzymes which transcribe the mRNA?

2. The RNA journey--Then the mRNA leaves the nucleus like a snake and meets with a ribosome. How many amino acids are in the ribosome?

3. Translation-- Then the mRNA and ribosome lock together like material going through a sewing machine. The ribosome translates the mRNA genetic code one nucleotide at a time into a string of amino acids that will become a protein.

4. tRNA--One of the most unexplainable things I have ever seen is tRNA--transfer RNA. As you know it brings each corresponding amino acid at the proper time and in the proper sequence. No one can explain how--it just does! THIS IS EVIDENCE OF THE UNSEEN. Something is guiding it as though it has intelligence and brings the proper amino acids at the proper time and in the proper sequence to match the mRNA strand.

5. Just one mistake in any of this process and there will serious problems or even death. And before you say that there are many mistakes--just remember that...

The Fall of Man and Death
ROMANS 5:12--Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby alextemplet » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:39 am

AFJ wrote:4. tRNA--One of the most unexplainable things I have ever seen is tRNA--transfer RNA. As you know it brings each corresponding amino acid at the proper time and in the proper sequence. No one can explain how--it just does! THIS IS EVIDENCE OF THE UNSEEN. Something is guiding it as though it has intelligence and brings the proper amino acids at the proper time and in the proper sequence to match the mRNA strand.


I am having a hard time understanding how you are able to argue that because we do not currently understand something means that it is forever inexplicable. It could just mean that it is perfectly explicable and we simply haven't been able to figure it out yet. What you are saying is not only a logical fallacy but also a sign of weak faith. You sound as if you will no longer be able to believe in God if everything can be explained. I cannot understand how anyone can think this way.

AFJ wrote:5. Just one mistake in any of this process and there will serious problems or even death. And before you say that there are many mistakes--just remember that...

The Fall of Man and Death
ROMANS 5:12--Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-


I fail to see your point with this. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest