Show Me And I’ll Believe

[blazer2000x]

From my Uncle Henry's chrome plating shop in Redbay, Alabama.

 

Is that supposed to be a joke? It sounds like you're admitting you don't know where they came from.

[C1ay]

The evolutionary theory has the same problems as creationism, in that neither can conclusively prove their claims. If one plays the devil's advocate (excuse the metaphor), both can be made to look like swiss cheese. It comes down to opinion.

Not really. Evolutionary theory does not claim to have all of the answers, if it did it wouldn't be a theory. There is plenty of observable evidence to support micro-evolution and accumulations of the same. There is zero observable evidence to support the physical creation of any species by any entity or force.

[Rsade]

That's as far as I'm going. Or need to. We have a self-reproducing proto-RNA molecule that affects its own environment.

 

RNA isn't DNA. In addition there is no geologic evidence of any precursors or compounds that would point to life. There should be huge deposits sediments , according to your own numbers. These sediments or sedimentary strata's would have the necessary chemicals to at least give supporting evidence to support your Ideas. There is however a GLARING lack of evidence to support your claims.

 

So while you make a seemingly logical presentation it fails upon closer inspection.

[Rsade]

The evolutionary theory has the same problems as creationism, in that neither can conclusively prove their claims. If one plays the devil's advocate (excuse the metaphor), both can be made to look like swiss cheese. It comes down to opinion.

 

I agree however the sine qua non of this is that religion does not change, science changes as often as I change my underwear....welleven faster than that (once a year) ....

[Rsade]

Do you mean Mutation?

Or one day I'm a bird, the next day I'm a lizard?

 

If you dont use the quotes function no one knows who you are talkin too coon'

[ughaibu]

Rsade: Thanks. I suspect viral possibilities dont get more attention as any other than calamitous extinction theories cast doubt on the ultimate nature of survival as a motivator. There may also be a psychological difficulty for humans to consider that they may have, effectively, an inbuilt obsolescence.

[Pyrotex]

Is that supposed to be a joke? It sounds like you're admitting you don't know where they came from.

Yes, that was supposed to be a joke.

 

No, I don't know "where" they "came from", but I highly suspect that the question, as stated, may not be as meaningful as you think it is.

 

A chromosome is a folded (for lack of a better word) skein of DNA. It is the shape that DNA defaults to inside the cell nucleus. Were you perhaps asking where DNA came from?

[Pyrotex]

Just because you ignore evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. But I know you'll just ignore anything I say to try and show your closed little mind, so I won't try. I'm not in a very good mood now, because it seems no one on these forums is capable of answering even one of the simplest questions....I guess you just answer what you can and pretend the rest isn't there.

Sorry, blazer, but I'm afraid somebody sold you a bill of goods. Perhaps you bumped into Arnold Schnabel's book, "Has God Spoken", or the creationist tome, "People and Pandas". Perhaps your father is a Baptist preacher, I dunno.

 

I'm sorry that you think that I "ignore" evidence, because I don't. I have read most of the two books I mentioned. There is lots of stuff in them that is offered as "evidence". But both books distort the very meaning of the word "evidence". If your education comes only from (dare I say) creationist propaganda, then you will have a skewed notion of what many terms mean: "evidence", "theory", "prove", and others. And this will make it almost impossible for us to communicate. In a true sense, we don't speak the same language. I speak "science" and you speak something that uses the same words but has them mean whatever the creationists want them to mean to suit their purpose.

 

Let's try something else. If some kids asked me where the Easter Bunny came from, and I said, "there is no Easter Bunny", they could easily accuse me of being close-minded. Am I close-minded? Am I willing to concede even the remotest possibility of the Easter Bunny? At my age, no. I can't. Does this mean I'm biased or that I'm incapable of thinking? Or that I ignore the evidence for the Easter Bunny -- namely, the egg hunts that happen every year in the grass behind their church building? And the fact that their parents tell them the Easter Bunny is real? Am I accusing their mommies and daddies of LYING!!!!!!!!!!:eek2:

 

God damn! What kind of a monster am I?? I should be arrested for conspiring to emotional abuse helpless little children and cover up the "facts" about the Easter Bunny!!

 

Okay, this analogy will go over like a lead balloon, I know. How do I tell you that you are a victim of a conspiracy to feed you a fantasy and prevent you from ever learning how to research the real world and think for yourself? No way, probably. And even suggesting this makes me a "bad man". But the fact is, there is a large force of movers and shakers in the extreme religionist camp that have a LOT to gain by keeping you ignorant.

 

Perhaps the only thing I can accomplish is simply to take a stand for what is true, and for what is most noble in the human spirit: intellegence and curiosity. You should know that people like me exist, and we're not out to destroy your little religion. We are out to understand the universe, and inch by inch, we will do so. With or without you.

[Pyrotex]

RNA isn't DNA. In addition there is no geologic evidence of any precursors or compounds that would point to life. There should be huge deposits sediments , according to your own numbers. These sediments or sedimentary strata's would have the necessary chemicals to at least give supporting evidence to support your Ideas.....

Mother Nature is a fickle *****.

She leaves behind 13 billion year old infrared radiation as evidence of the Big Bang and she can't even leave behind one lousy friggin pre-RNA precursor molecule that would be ten billion years younger!

 

Those are the breaks. DNA will break down without its supporting cellular mechanisms (enzymes, proteins, etc) to protect and repair it. We can recover snippets -- small pieces -- of DNA from 10,000 year old mastadons that were frozen in tundra, but that's about it. Carbon molecules aren't going to last 3 billion years. The fact that we can't find them is NOT evidence or proof that they never existed. This is logic. Nor is the truth of my logic evidence or proof that they DID exist.

 

Sometimes, we have to answer, "I don't know" or "we have no evidence one way or the other". It's one sign of an intelligent mind that it can accept such answers without trying to twist them around to "mean" something.

[Biochemist]

Let's take a look at prebiogenesis (as I like to think of it), or as archeo-organic chemistry. Have you heard this reasoning before?....That's as far as I'm going. Or need to. We have a self-reproducing proto-RNA molecule that affects its own environment.

I appreciate you writing this down, Py. I have heard this before.

 

I do understand that this is the core of the prevailing theory for abiogenesis. I do think it appears more than a little bit wishful. Fundamentally, the statistical issue is that the first prokaryotes were pretty complex little creatures. That is, it appears subjectively that the increase in complexity from prokaryote to mammal is smaller than the increase in complexity form inorganic precursor to prokaryote. If we generally accept the 3.5 billion year age for the first prokaryote, and 4.5 billion year age of the planet, we optimistically get maybe 500 million years between adequate earth cooling and water aggregation and the generally-accepted life arrival date. Ancient prokaryotes had not just macromolecules, but organized enzyme systems with product-reactant feedback loops (just like mammals to) organized into physical deployment structures that optimize biochemical throughput.

 

I think that if you give youself 10^10 testubes, and put actual DNA bases, RNA bases (heck, throw in the sugars and the phosphates) and amino acids and bufferred the environment at 7.2, we would probably still have trouble getting a self replicating prokaryote in 500 million years in one of the test tubes. You can quibble with this, but this really is problematic. It is really tough to make the math work, given the size of the DNA in a prokaryote.

 

I don't have an issue with keeping this alternative open as a option. I just don't default to this model being reasonable.

 

Science does often show us surprises (heavens, particle physics comes to mind) so we can't rule your model out. But goodness, it certainly is not a comfortable hypothesis.

[InfiniteNow]

test post. most recent post (by BioChemist) not appearing.

[Biochemist]

Thanks, I-now. I couldn't figure out where my post went.

Bio

[Pyrotex]

I appreciate you writing this down, Py. I have heard this before....I don't have an issue with keeping this alternative open as a option. I just don't default to this model being reasonable. Science does often show us surprises (heavens, particle physics comes to mind) so we can't rule your model out. But goodness, it certainly is not a comfortable hypothesis.

Yes, Bio, that is true. Or as my father used to say, "highly true".

The Big Bang. Who'da thunkit? The Steady State Universe was my choice in college and Fred Hoyle was a hero to me.

I was quite satisfied with Bohr and his atom of indivisible electrons and nucleons. Then they had to go and find structure inside the proton. Dirty pool, if you ask me. And what's all this brou-ha-ha about "probability waves"? C'mon guys, this is just too freakin much!!

Here at NASA, I've had to get used to the idea that F=ma and Newton's other laws are approximations even at ordinary slow speeds!!! Drop a lead ball from a 100 meter tower, and it will NOT go straight down. You can't even trust Newton any more!! Where is the world going to???;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[Biochemist]

Yes, Bio, that is true. Or as my father used to say, "highly true".

We have now fundamentally agreed in two separate threads. Something is wrong here.

[Pyrotex]

We have now fundamentally agreed in two separate threads. Something is wrong here.

Yeah. Next thing you know, I'll be inviting you out for a drink and showing you my favorite Bible verses. Eeeeeeeeyyyyeewwwwwwwww!!!! ;)

Now who said I couldn't change my mind????? ;)

[Rsade]

it appears subjectively that the increase in complexity from prokaryote to mammal is smaller than the increase in complexity form inorganic precursor to prokaryote

 

Science does often show us surprises (heavens, particle physics comes to mind) so we can't rule your model out. But goodness, it certainly is not a comfortable hypothesis.

 

The time limit was the “final straw” that made up my mind that there must be another explanation of how life arose. Even the supposed 14 or so billion years (the age of entire universe) isn’t enough time to produce life and all of its complexity without some other processes unknown (well unknown to unbelievers in IDT or of no religious faith) .

 

The first thing that got me thinking (about how the universe was created...heh) happens to be a millennia old successful; argument for creator and a begging to our universe is that the universe must have had a cause (god) to come into existence.

 

Nothing begins to exist without a cause.

 

Thanks bio for your candor.

 

rs

[InfiniteNow]

The first thing that got me thinking (about how the universe was created...heh) happens to be a millennia old successful; argument for creator and a begging to our universe is that the universe

must

have had a cause (god) to come into existence.

While I always feel that any premise is possible, and that information helps us to ensure we are accurately observing and interpreting the phenomena around us, it's important for you to be careful when speaking in "musts" and "oughts."

 

This is an opinion, not a statement of fact. It is your interpretation. While I do not agree with it, I respect it. Just be cautious when making such all encompassing statements like that.

 

In the spirit of kindness,