|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Evolution Intellectually Viable? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
The mosquito and fly only have about 13,000 genes. 60% are eseentially the same (allelic variants if you like).20% have sub matches alnong their length (domains) 10% have a non-insect best-match 10% are completely unique from all of the sequencing in all of life Time will tell but much of this 10% may be genuinely species-specific (not necessarily at the species level per se). I have identified very clearly a way to attempt to identify kinds if we had the genomes. Most of my points transcend the definition of a kind anyway. All taxonomic levels down to something around the family levlel are distinguishable by protein families so you cannot argue allelic variation as a viable mechanism for the origin of new protein families. So don't get more caught up on kinds than even we are. Gene families are kingdom-specific, class-specific, order specific, family specific etc. Our prediciton is that somewhere along the line there will be no new families except as might be incorrectly suggested due to reletive losses. We do have a prediciton and it does not need an a priori definition of 'kind' to be sensible, discusable and usable. Of course it will become more useful in about 5 or 10 years. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Ahmad
You are basically correct. You are probably just overstating. It is probably overstating it to say that no protein could ever have been created randomly somewhere. 1 in 10,000 protein sequences fold, about 1 in a million will do something useful. Only one in a billion will do something you want it to do and the chances of getting more than one of these to do anything useful together is probably close to impossible even if the universe was filled with soup. So I agree with you but I prefer the way I put it. What evolutionists rely on is that some extremely simple form of life might be possible. We can't rule it out. But it is only their hope. And I agree that even that would probably be impossible. Your other statements about 'this evolved into that' are also basically true but your language is imprecise. Once one has a cell then evolution can proceed somewhat non-randomly due to selection processes. But it will basically juts fine-tune itself. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
I disagree with your first point and agree with your second. Bird is quite right that the formation of peptides just haven't been seen in naturee or the lab without unrealistic setups. You all really are just living in a fantasyland on that issue. Your second point I agree with. The probability calcs give overly high estimats for the reason you outlined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Brother Ahmad,
As a theistic evolutionist I do not rely too much on abiogenesis speculations... Today I still think of the scientific theories for abiogenesis as highly speculative, however I am trying to be careful not to jump to theological conclusions. If someday they got it right on abiogenesis then my theology will need to be re-examined. Also, even if the first living molecule (the replicator as I assume) is created miraculously by Allah, that will not be a problem for my view of evolution. Even Dawkins himself dare not speculate on the origin of replication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Andya
You should also be careful about what scientific conclusions you come to. Interpretaitons vs facts are a mine-field in this debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
quote: And once again, from the top, please children: Evolution is not abiogenesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
They don't. It's not part of any evolutionist's field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Delshad Inactive Member |
Hi all, sorry to just jump in this thread like this but I wish to explain a thing.
John, I think you had good intentions with your analogy about the stone rolling down the hill, but sorry to say, it is a bit misleading, dont you think? Let me explain, no one has stated that a stone can`t roll down a hill and therefore it is quite irrelevant to note the exact path it tooked and calculate the propabilty of another stone to exactly repeat its previous path.That is , if you throw another stone down the hill, no matter how many bumps or turns, it will still continue downwards and so the end product is essentially the same. But what Ahmed is saying( if I havent misunderstood him) is that the cause (the throw if you like) havent been observed in abiogenesis and therefore it isnt misleading to calculate the probabilty, because that is the only way to know if it could have happened or not. Sincerely Delshad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Delshad Inactive Member |
Salam O`aleikum Ahmad.
I think you should be very carefull before you draw any hasty conclusions about Andya`s faith in Islam. Think about this, if Allah had revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) that man was descended from primates, how would the Prophet then explain to his followers what was revealed to him, followers that (just previously worshipped stone statues.)Even now, 21:th century, with all the technological achievemets that has been made, it is quite hard to explain the theory without resistance. Then how much harder did you believe it would have been for our Prophet to explain to his followers 1400 years ago the theory of evolution. Do you think it would have helped to spread the holy message, highly unlikely . ) The truth is, that many ayats, in wich explain physical phenomenon, such as the Big Bang, the the theory of expansion, the human developement of the embryo amongst many other miracles, wich were unknown in the Prophts lifetime, are appreciated in our time( by believers) and have enforced our belief in The Quran as a holy Book. Allah has revealed "and step by step, We will show them our signs so that they will separate the truth from false". And conserning your statement that the Quran doesnt support evolutionthen read this , sura`t Al-Baccara ayah 30. "Behold thy Lord said to the angels:"I will create a vicegerent on earth."They said : "Wilt thou place therein one who will make mischief and shed blood?- Wilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said:"I know what ye know not" Here it becomes clear that the angels had already seen something similar to man, and that they shed blood and made mischief, but these men were not vicegerents of the Earth until the moment they had been blessed with deeper insight of knowledge in both themselves and they`re surroundings, wich becomes clearer in ayah 31 and 32. Have a good Ramadan brother and try to not be so haste in your conclusions, because if Creation were to be known as an absolute fact, then everyone would be religious and there would be no test, Allah is a god of Truth, The most High, the Beneficient, the Merciful. Ma Salam Ahmad Sincerely Dilshad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Good question, but THAT it turns up heads every time does not imply the intervention of a God, which is how you seem to using the argument.
quote: That was a typo. I meant 'conscious' not 'conscience.' oops. And you have been implying the intervention of a conscious but unseen entity.
quote: Are you talking about the magician's trick? If someone practices enough you can learn to control the rotation of a coin. And yes, it could be a trick of the tosser. But 'could be' is proof of anything. Gee, everytime I throw a rock up, it comes back down. That COULD BE a trick of invisible aliens who push stuff down all the time. I can see where this is going. If you wish to infer that proteins, or any other element, are tricks of the tosser, you have to provide evidence of the tosser.
quote: And this is relevant why? You are essentially talking about an UNSEEN entity-- Allah in your case.
quote: Probability calculations cannot answer this question. That is the whole point of this debate with you. If proteins were created, that evidence with show up in the hard data.
quote: Does too!!!!!!
quote: hmm.... and chemicals are not inanimate? Strike that objection. We are talking about inanimate objects.
quote: But your example is a misuse of probability. Andya gave you another example.
quote: March your butt over the math department of a major university.
quote: Yup, and make the same mistake you do, which is why the scientific world is not quaking in fear.
quote: You have given the conditions in which modern proteins exist and are viable. What were the conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago? And what happen in the next two billion years? Have you carefully analyzed every possible option for precursor proteins, chemical environments, radiation? Think carefully.
quote: The extra entity is the conscious agent to which you contiually allude.
quote: And this is the most simple POSSIBLE protein, or just the most simple existing protein? What about protein precursors?
quote: Can it? How did you come to this conclusion? Chemical bonds are not completely random. It isn't like shuffling a deck of cards. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Thanks for the suggestion TB. Am I standing on a landmine now?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024