|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Evolution Intellectually Viable? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Does it sound logical or reasonable (when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist), that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species (including us) on earth were formed?
Salam,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
John,
quote: "the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."(W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304) Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacteria (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 10^40000. (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros next to 1) Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. p.127 Regards,Ahmad (P.S. In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10^50 are accepted as "zero probability")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
mark24,
quote: How do naturalistic evolutionist account for the first life on earth that supposedly triggered a series of changes leading from a single celled organisms to mult-cellular organisms? Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Tranquility Base,
quote: I am open for correction as I am just a science student. So if I am wrong, please correct me. Let me see if I can get this right, Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place within a very long period of time and that this long period made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History writing that this chance is so small "that it (protein) would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids." W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 305 So, if the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, a cell is at no time composed of a mere protein heap. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals like electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, harmony, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of them functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles. Right? Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
John,
quote: Not incredulity but the Mathematical Theory of Probability.
quote: Your analogy of Probability is faulty and misleading. Do you assume that the rock could have been thrown a conscious thrower who will record this "twitch, spin, and roll"?? You are jumping to conclusions. Why would we statistically calculate the probability of the rock taking the particular path when the rock had actually taken the path and we observed it in situ?? And besides (in comparison with your analogy), you have yet to prove that coincidence actually was responsible for protein formation before saying that they, indeed, were formed by mere coincidence. If not, then let us be assured that a Supreme Consciousness did de facto intervene in protein formation and a host of several other non-coincidental, non-chanced processes and mechanisms. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
John,
quote: Such as....?? If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance or to accept that there is conscious intervention? The answer should be obvious.
quote: Understood. But the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule still stands. How, pertaining, to this have you based your analagous argument?
quote: Since the basis of my argument is whether chance or a consciousness was responsible and since your analogous argument was pertaining to my statements, I would say it is more than relevant.
quote: The falling of a rock from a hill (whether by chance or a conscious thrower; you haven't clarified) is far from creating an analogous argument against the impossibility of the coincidental formation of a single protein molecule. Give me a better analogy. Let me elaborate. The viability of proteins depends on three strict conditions. First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called "peptide bond". Are you saying that coincidence resulted in the agreement of these three strict conditions for a useful protein all out of the blue?? Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously "by coincidence". Yet at this point, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to sustain its presence, it would need to be isolated from the natural setting that it is in and protected under very special conditions. Otherwise this protein would either disintegrate from exposure to natural earth conditions or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, losing its properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance. Think about it.
quote: If chance is not(and cannot) responsible for the formation of the building-blocks of the living cell, what then is?? What other validations or alternatives do you assume for the formation of useful proteins? Is this not enough for an evidence?? Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
John,
quote: So WHY is it turning up heads everytime it is tossed?? What assumption do you make of it? A conscious trick by the tosser or just coincidence?
quote: Don't misunderstand me please. I never said that an unseen conscience is involved. This is just an example that if the coin (with a head and tail) is always turning up heads when it is tossed, then surely it might be a trick of the conscious tosser. Do you agree?
quote: I have not used the word unseen in my example.
quote: Since we don't have a time-machine to go back and see that evolution of proteins in action, what other better alternatives do you suppose we can adopt (other than probability calculations) to determine whether the first protein got evolved or was the original shape and structure when first consciously created??
quote: It does not. Your example of a rock hardly explains my analogy. The rock is an inanimate object and will go any direction it is thrown onto (whether by a conscious thrower or by wind). While my example deals with the probability of the formation of a single complex amino acid coming together, in agreement with the strict conditions (as I aforementioned) and forming the building blocks of cells and thus life without any conscious intervention.
quote: Flaw? So far you haven't been successful in pointing out any. And besides, many scientists likewise have used probability calculations in the formation of protein molecules by chance like Coppedge (Evolution: Possible or Impossible), Harold Blum (Origin of species revisited), William Stokes, Robert Shappiro, Michael Behe (Darwin's black box) and they drew the same conclusion as J.D Thomas, "It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task."(J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith. Abilene, TX, ACU Press, 1988. p. 81-82)
quote: What I am saying is that if the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times more impossible for about one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete human cell without [b][i]Conscious Intervention[/b][/i].
quote: Are you saying that the strict conditions for the viablity of protiens (as I pointed out earlier) is total trash and we still don't know??
quote: Hmm; When did I mention of an extra entity?? Are there 2 entities? No! My position is clear. Are you assuming that the simplest Protein composed of 288 amino acids, which can be arranged in 10^300 different ways would come at the right place at the right order in agreement of all the aformentioned strict conditions, [/i]without Conscious design[/i]?? Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Dr_Tazimus_maximus,
quote: It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only through certain arms (bonds) called peptide bonds. A comparison will clarify this point: Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly placed with the only exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with its nuts and bolts but with a piece of wire in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the distance of one meter no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its motor. At a first glance, everything seems to be in the right place, but the wrong fixture of even one of the wheels renders the entire car useless. In the same manner, in a protein molecule, the joining of even one amino acid with another with a bond other than a peptide bond renders the entire molecule useless.
quote: So are you saying that the first protein, here on earth, would have been a complete, pure, total and in an unadulterated form? If yes, then I have no argument as it seemingly proves a Conscious Intervention which is what I am stating. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Assala Moalaikum brother Primanda,
If Allah (SWT) created the first cell and let evolution do its job henceforth, why is it not mentioned in Al-Quran? Why is there no mention that we Human beings descended from hominids and they are our ancestors? This is what the Quran says:
[i][b]"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein." (Surah Qaf: 16)[/i][/b] Why did not Allah (SWT) say that He evolved human beings?? I am pointing this out because you say you are a Muslim apart from a biologist. If I err in my understanding, then May Allah (SWT) forgive me. Salam,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
If abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution, then how do naturalistic evolutionists explain the origin of the first living cell?
Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
So the evolutionist explains only HOW evolution tooks place but does not delve to the root cause of the the HOW. Am I right?
Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Walaikum salam Delshad,
I take your advise and will try to do likewise. Thanks. And yes, Ramadan Mubarak to you too Salam,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
John,
quote: Who's speaking of God here? I am not impying any element of luck here but its an example to point out the conscious intervention of the tosser. Nothing more .. nothing less.
quote: Once again, I have not used the word unseen in my argument... yet. Its a simple analogy to demonstrate the conscious interference of the tosser.
quote: What I intend to illustrate through my analogy that something highly improbable (almost impossible) such as the coincidental formation of proteins or the tossing of a coin that always turns out to be heads, is the conscious intervention of God and the tosser respectively. Do you agree?
quote: Don't you think that the high improbability as the modern human minds have evaluated regarding the coincidental formation of proteins, enough evidence for the existence of the tosser a.k.a God??
quote: Lets go step-by-step.
quote: C'mon.. you don't expect every proteins to have the name of its creator like "Made by Allah", do you?
quote: Since chemicals like proteins do have protoplasm, which is the basic source of life, do you consider them to be inanimate? (Correct me if I am wrong)
quote: How?
quote: quote: Who are you? A scholar, a scientist?? Do you have Ph.D? What are your credentials to undermine the scientists I have mentioned?
quote: I am not sure about this but are you suggesting that there is a difference between modern proteins and primitive ones? Elaborate plz.
quote: Any protein for that matter. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma Hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, I would have to repeat the probability calculations I have made before for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
quote: Am I wrong in this assumption of a simple protein which can be arrange in 10^300 ways? And besides, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is rather a modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, even the word "impossible" becomes inadequate. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."(Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984, p. 148.)
Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: First of all, a peptide bond is formed by the elimination of water. The compund formed is a dipeptide and successsive covalent bonds form a polypeptide. The R group is just one of the "arms" you have mentioned. Ofcourse, this the group that gives each amino acid its uniqueness. A peptide bond is also composed of a free amino group and a carboxyl group. Research has shown that amino acids combining at random happen to combine with a peptide bond only at a ratio of 50% and that the rest combined with different bonds that are not present in proteins. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined only with a peptide bond in the same way that it has to be chosen only from among the left-handed ones. This probability is the same as the probability of each protein being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 over 2^399.
quote: So are you denying that a specific chain, a specific arrangement is needed for the correct function of amino acids? I don't recall mentioning anything about the structure but its function.This is my argument: -The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond" = 1/2-The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2^499 = 1/10^150 = 1 chance in 10^150 This is a huge number. Its 10 followed by 150 zeros.
quote: Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those and only those amino acids, which are united by "peptide" bonds.
quote: Just a moment... << Here's a scientific article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about complexity and proteins. The author makes a case that biological proteins are amongst the most complex things in our Universe - yet ends this paper with the shallow claim that evolution is the cause of this complexity. "This brief sketch should make it clear that proteins are truly complex systems and that the complexity can be described through the energy landscape. The complexity has arisen through evolution." Ofcourse, the article proves my point of the complexity involved in proteins Regards,Ahmad
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024