God vs. Science

[Sledlude]

wow. yessir, I do understand mathematics. I know what a probability is. The point is, there is a probability, no matter how small, that is mathmatically calculatable... right? what is the probability that divine Creation occured? Is it measurable? Is there a mathematical possibility? I don't think there is. It is not mathematically measurable because there is no science behind it; ie there is no evidence to back it up.

'belief' in evolution is not like 'belief' in a god who created us- there is scientific proof vs ancient text.

The fact that the chances are small that an event will occur does not hold as evidence against its occurrence.

Do you 2 understand mathematics?

Probability is the chance or likelihood that a certain event will happen. Mathematical probability is usually expressed as a ratio. If it is equally likely that an event may happen in h ways and fail to happen in f ways, where h + f = n, then the probability that the event will occur may be expressed as the ratio h/n, and the probability that it will fail to occur may be expressed as the ratio f/n. The fraction that denotes the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will happen. The fraction that denotes the number of ways an event will fail to happen divided by the total number of possible outcomes represents the probability that an event will fail to happen.

Let me explain it this way, scientists at Cornell estimate that there are 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the universe. That number is a 4 followed by 79 zeros.

Do you realize now that the odds are incredibly large - and that for just a single cell - not all of the cells that exist in the universe? On top of that the cell would have to live long enough to reproduce, and that would be another set of odds? It won't happen. It is as close to impossible as anything can get.

If you want to believe in evolution, realize that you are taking it completely on faith, not based on science. Physics, genetics and mathematics do more to disprove evolution than support it - at this point in time, with our current knowledge. I am not saying that you cannot believe in evolution, just understand that it is no different than religion right now. You are believing through faith in something based upon what has been told to you by other people.

[David88vert]

wow. yessir, I do understand mathematics. I know what a probability is. The point is, there is a probability, no matter how small, that is mathmatically calculatable... right? what is the probability that divine Creation occured? Is it measurable? Is there a mathematical possibility? I don't think there is. It is not mathematically measurable because there is no science behind it; ie there is no evidence to back it up.

'belief' in evolution is not like 'belief' in a god who created us- there is scientific proof vs ancient text.

The fact that the chances are small that an event will occur does not hold as evidence against its occurrence.

Evolution claims to be based upon scienctific measurements and observations, therefore you can calculate its mathematical probabilty as we are dealing with a finite universe. Religion does not claim to be based upon scientific measurements, therefore you cannot calculate its mathematical probability as we are dealing with an inifinite entity. However, there was a book that attempted to deal with the mathematical probability of God's existance, and it was written by an atheist attempting to disprove God. By his own calculations, however flawed, he determined that there was a 97% chance that God did not exist. If you take his answer, it is much more likely that we were created by the Christian God, than we came into existance by random chance.

There is ample scientific evidence against evolution, as I have pointed out, and no one has been able to produce any conclusive evidence for it - and I don't mean just on this forum, I mean anywhere. No one has been able to show a species evolve to another species, and current genetic understanding expressly negates the possibility.

Since you need to learn for yourself, I would suggest you see how random mutation works through a simplified simulator. It is not perfect IMO, but it will get the point across that random mutation doesn't work. Yes, it is from a pro-ID site, but the math is correct regardless.
http://progettocosmo.altervista.org/...sk=view&id=102

[Sledlude]

There is ample scientific evidence against evolution, as I have pointed out, and no one has been able to produce any conclusive evidence for it - and I don't mean just on this forum, I mean anywhere. No one has been able to show a species evolve to another species, and current genetic understanding expressly negates the possibility.

What is a species? it is described as a group of organisms that can only reproduce with itself. correct? Evolution is a process that has been described as taking millions of years- the evolution of a macroorganism takes too long to be noticeably to human observers. HOWEVER... we can look at microorganisms, such as bacteria. They are evolving before our eyes. Natural selection occurs everyday in these organisms. Look at antibiotic resistant strains! Genes for antibiotic resistance can be transferred from one bacterium to another (a process called transduction). Once a bacterium has acquired the genes for antibiotic resistance, it is no longer susceptible to being killed off by said antibiotic, nor are its daughter cells. Ever heard of MRSA or VRSA staphylococcus? These strains have acquired serious resistance and are virtually untreatable by conventional antibiotics. This phenomenon is pretty much explained by OUR overuse of antibiotics (remember, back in the day, they prescribed penicillin for everything). After some horizontal gene transfer, and killing off of susceptible organisms, resistant strains have emerged ('evolved', if you will ) Natural selection/evolution before your eyes, homeboy.

It is observable to us in these organisms because of their extremely small generation times. You also see this in mice that are resistant to pesticides, in weeds that are resistant to herbicides, etc. etc.... For larger, k-selected species (that take forever to establish a new generation), evolutionary change takes way too long for us to notice. Now that we have written history, lets see in a few thousand years (if we are still around) what kind of changes our species has made, and what characteristics we will have acquired. It should be interesting!!!

edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to David88vert again.

Thank you for intelligent debate.

[David88vert]

What is a species? it is described as a group of organisms that can only reproduce with itself. correct? Evolution is a process that has been described as taking millions of years- the evolution of a macroorganism takes too long to be noticeably to human observers. HOWEVER... we can look at microorganisms, such as bacteria. They are evolving before our eyes. Natural selection occurs everyday in these organisms. Look at antibiotic resistant strains! Genes for antibiotic resistance can be transferred from one bacterium to another (a process called transduction). Once a bacterium has acquired the genes for antibiotic resistance, it is no longer susceptible to being killed off by said antibiotic, nor are its daughter cells. Ever heard of MRSA or VRSA staphylococcus? These strains have acquired serious resistance and are virtually untreatable by conventional antibiotics. This phenomenon is pretty much explained by OUR overuse of antibiotics (remember, back in the day, they prescribed penicillin for everything). After some horizontal gene transfer, and killing off of susceptible organisms, resistant strains have emerged ('evolved', if you will ) Natural selection/evolution before your eyes, homeboy.

It is observable to us in these organisms because of their extremely small generation times. You also see this in mice that are resistant to pesticides, in weeds that are resistant to herbicides, etc. etc.... For larger, k-selected species (that take forever to establish a new generation), evolutionary change takes way too long for us to notice. Now that we have written history, lets see in a few thousand years (if we are still around) what kind of changes our species has made, and what characteristics we will have acquired. It should be interesting!!!

edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to David88vert again.

Thank you for intelligent debate.

Ah, bacteria - a good, logical statement from you. Only a couple of things were left out. Bacteria that mutate their DNA tend to not be as effective at doing their intended task, nor do they tend to reproduce as well. Natural selection "should" improve the bacteria, correct? That's not the case currently with mutated bacteria. Their defective proteins tend to lose normal functionality based upon current observations. Mutated bateria do not gain any funtionality that we are aware of currently, correct?
Horizonal gene transfer is capable in bacteria, but not humans or complex life forms. While bateria can swap DNA genes, they are not creating any new genes, and thus cannot create new, more complex species (like people). You are just swapping genes around, but you are not creating new genetic information.

Mutation and natural selection lead to a loss of functionality, not the creation of it. Genetic information is not created, only modified. That is not evolution, as it is not evolving to a higher level.

Evolution from a species to species change must be done at the genetic level. With somewhere between 5-30 million species on earth, there has not been found in nature any example of one genetic strain inside the cell gradually evolving (creating new information) into another functional genetic strain.

However, I applaud you on your post. It was much better than anyone else so far.

[Sledlude]

Ah, bacteria - a good, logical statement from you. Only a couple of things were left out. Bacteria that mutate their DNA tend to not be as effective at doing their intended task, nor do they tend to reproduce as well.

Not necessarily! It is true that a mutation leads to a loss of function of that particular gene, but what it can also do is change the primary sequence of amino acids, which can lead to the expression of a completely different protein. Sometimes these changes are not beneficial, and sometimes they are. Thats the reason we can genetically alter bacterial genomes to be more productive, that is, reproductively or otherwise. We already clone 'superbugs' to be more useful to us industrially (think yeast cells that are genetically optimized to make more productive beer fermentations, (and these are eukaryotic cells- way more complex than bacteria)). Another example of mutation leading to more production- cancer cells. A loss of function caused by mutation here leads to uncontrollable reproduction of the cell- some are even resistant to therapy. They reproduce so much that they end up killing the body.

Natural selection "should" improve the bacteria, correct? That's not the case currently with mutated bacteria. Their defective proteins tend to lose normal functionality based upon current observations. Mutated bateria do not gain any funtionality that we are aware of currently, correct?
Horizonal gene transfer is capable in bacteria, but not humans or complex life forms. While bateria can swap DNA genes, they are not creating any new genes, and thus cannot create new, more complex species (like people). You are just swapping genes around, but you are not creating new genetic information.

natural selection doesnt necessarily require an improvement per se; just a selective advantage. Just some change in the organism that lets it survive and reproduce while other individuals cannot. And yes, mutations *can* create new genetic info. Like I said before, alteration of one basepair (which can happen easily) can lead to an entirely new protein.

Mutation and natural selection lead to a loss of functionality, not the creation of it. Genetic information is not created, only modified. That is not evolution, as it is not evolving to a higher level.

Ever heard of transposons? Bridge-break-fusion cycles? These phenomena totally have the potential to create novel genotypes. Genomes can also grow in size... genetic material is 'absorbed' by bacterial genomes all the time( a process called transformation). Anything that allows an organism to survive better, (whether it be by reproducing more, secreting exotoxins, being resistant to toxins, hell, even growing sharper teeth) will lead to its natural selection.

A good example of a bacterial genome growing in size and undergoing a mutation that gives it a selective advantage is V. cholerae. It has recently been found that resistant strains of this organism were made resistant because their genomes absorbed the resistance-encoding genome of a bacteriophage. Cool Stuff!

[David88vert]

Not necessarily! It is true that a mutation leads to a loss of function of that particular gene, but what it can also do is change the primary sequence of amino acids, which can lead to the expression of a completely different protein. Sometimes these changes are not beneficial, and sometimes they are. Thats the reason we can genetically alter bacterial genomes to be more productive, that is, reproductively or otherwise. We already clone 'superbugs' to be more useful to us industrially (think yeast cells that are genetically optimized to make more productive beer fermentations, (and these are eukaryotic cells- way more complex than bacteria)). Another example of mutation leading to more production- cancer cells. A loss of function caused by mutation here leads to uncontrollable reproduction of the cell- some are even resistant to therapy. They reproduce so much that they end up killing the body.

Changing characteristics is not creating new species. And currently, we cannot even artifically create a new species with a single cell - although we are getting close. Going from microbes-to-man is a much larger task, and not even remotely possible in the near future. Cancer cells function is to kill the body - antibodies are used against it, and slow it, that does not make it function better.

natural selection doesnt necessarily require an improvement per se; just a selective advantage. Just some change in the organism that lets it survive and reproduce while other individuals cannot. And yes, mutations *can* create new genetic info. Like I said before, alteration of one basepair (which can happen easily) can lead to an entirely new protein.

Evolution does require an improvement, per the definition of the word. Natural selection is the proposed means. Alteration of characteristics do not create new species. If I remember correctly, you need at least a 5 molecule sequence to change and reproduce into other cells to have a genetic improvement (You will have to check me and keep me honest on this). That has yet to happen and be observed naturally.

Ever heard of transposons? Bridge-break-fusion cycles? These phenomena totally have the potential to create novel genotypes. Genomes can also grow in size... genetic material is 'absorbed' by bacterial genomes all the time( a process called transformation). Anything that allows an organism to survive better, (whether it be by reproducing more, secreting exotoxins, being resistant to toxins, hell, even growing sharper teeth) will lead to its natural selection.

A good example of a bacterial genome growing in size and undergoing a mutation that gives it a selective advantage is V. cholerae. It has recently been found that resistant strains of this organism were made resistant because their genomes absorbed the resistance-encoding genome of a bacteriophage. Cool Stuff!

Yes, and I have read a lot of Kimball's links (I'm guessing you were there). I haven't really read anything much on cholera, but if you will post some links to research, I will be happy to read up on it, and check some other research sites on it. I have now managed to suck you into genetics! It is cool stuff.

A+ to you for a very good post.

[Sledlude]

Yes, and I have read a lot of Kimball's links (I'm guessing you were there). I haven't really read anything much on cholera, but if you will post some links to research, I will be happy to read up on it, and check some other research sites on it. I have now managed to suck you into genetics! It is cool stuff.

A+ to you for a very good post.

Nope, this is straight off the dome from me... you didn't suck me into anything! Its what I do! I am actively involved in microbiology and molecular biology research. As we speak, I am growing competent E. Coli cells so that I can transform them with a plasmid containing a gene that I am trying to express. I know a thing or two about manipulating genomes.

I will get back to the rest of your post later, as I have a lot to say about that. A lil' hungover, not thinking straight, and too much to do at the moment

[qwick]

No one has been able to show a species evolve to another species[/size], and current genetic understanding expressly negates the possibility.

There are many instances where the" family tree” of a species splits and becomes a seemingly different type of species thus giving rise to the term “a close cousin” where referring to similar species that came from the same ancestor took different “path of evolution” caused by differences in habitat, climate or a number of other reasons. An example would be dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were more closely related to reptiles, and it has been shown that the “family tree” split and gave rise to modern day reptiles and birds.

[David88vert]

There are many instances where the" family tree” of a species splits and becomes a seemingly different type of species thus giving rise to the term “a close cousin” where referring to similar species that came from the same ancestor took different “path of evolution” caused by differences in habitat, climate or a number of other reasons. An example would be dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were more closely related to reptiles, and it has been shown that the “family tree” split and gave rise to modern day reptiles and birds.

No scientist has been able to show a proveable genetic path between two species. Family tree splits have been speculation only. Genetic proof has not been shown.

Let me guess, you have been reading EvilBible.

[qwick]

No scientist has been able to show a proveable genetic path between two species. Family tree splits have been speculation only. Genetic proof has not been shown.

Let me guess, you have been reading EvilBible.

There is significant evidence that some species of Raptors evolved over time to have both scales and feathers, and that as these species moved to different areas the scales or feathers became a more and more dominate trait. In fact fossils have been found where the animal was completely covered in feathers and some of the bones interior were porous while a few hundred miles away the same species was found with only scales and a sold bone interior. This evidence alone supports the theory that some dinosaurs evolved to both birds and reptiles.



No I have never read EvilBible but I was told it is interesting, Your opinion on the book?

[David88vert]

There is significant evidence that some species of Raptors evolved over time to have both scales and feathers, and that as these species moved to different areas the scales or feathers became a more and more dominate trait. In fact fossils have been found where the animal was completely covered in feathers and some of the bones interior were porous while a few hundred miles away the same species was found with only scales and a sold bone interior. This evidence alone supports the theory that some dinosaurs evolved to both birds and reptiles.

Speculation. Please show the research supporting this.

No I have never read EvilBible but I was told it is interesting, Your opinion on the book?

evilbible.com is a site.